Oral Answers to Questions

Sandra Gidley: Some would say that the banks have been treated more than fairly, yet, they have not passed on that largesse to their customers. Will the Minister look into a case where the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is one of the banks that has been bailed out, has increased fivefold the repayments required from one of the businesses in my constituency, despite an existing six-month agreement and the fact it was a long-standing customer? That could, effectively, put 80 jobs at risk. Does he think that is fair and, given such agreements, what will he do to ensure that customers and businesses are treated fairly by the banks?

Brian Binley: The Prime Minister boasted yesterday that help has been given to small business, yet all the small businesses that have contacted me say that the banks are not well informed about the scheme, some are reluctant to promote it and many small firms are unaware of it. The Minister talked about monitoring, from which one assumes he has had some results. Will he tell us what results he has had because my information is that things simply are not working?

Ian Pearson: We are closely engaged in supporting the UK automotive sector, both at a European level, through pressing the European Investment Bank for an €8 billion automotive support fund and, domestically, through our investments in low-carbon research and development and training and our package of support for small and medium-sized enterprises announced in the pre-Budget report.

Ian Pearson: I do not want to speculate on talks that the Government may or may not have been having with a range of automotive companies. What I want to say clearly to the House is that the automotive sector is extremely important to the UK. Peter Mandelson and I publicly had a meeting with a wide cross-section of the automotive manufacturers, suppliers and retailers on 27 November. We continue closely to engage with the sector, and I am determined that we do everything we sensibly can to help viable businesses during these exceptional times.

Ian Pearson: My hon. Friend is an expert in these areas, and I agree that the integrated nature of the automotive supply chain brings real challenges for suppliers when the automotive manufacturers decide to take extended breaks. We are acutely aware of the pressures that the situation is causing a number of supply chain companies. As he is aware, the UK has about 200,000 jobs in the supply chain alone, about 500,000 in retail and about 180,000 in direct automotive production. This is a vast and important sector to the UK economy, and we need to examine what more we can do to support companies that are going through very difficult times at the moment.

Peter Luff: I heard what the Minister said, and he cited the statistics that I was going to cite about the manufacturing and retail sectors. But continuing to engage closely is not enough; action is urgently needed. I have just come from a meeting with the Retail Motor Industry Federation, which has suggested a range of practical measures that would help it and manufactures. Such measures include abandoning the Government's proposals to remove the right of car retailers to claim back vehicle excise duty in respect of unused car discs and ending the Government's punitive attack on void rates. The pathetic measures introduced by the Chancellor just will not be enough for car dealers, who will have empty premises next year. A range of things, such as introducing 100 per cent. capital allowances for commercial vehicles, could be done now—urgently—to prevent an imminent disaster, not just for manufacturers, but for retailers.

Ian Pearson: As I have said, we want to do all that we sensibly can to help viable businesses. My right hon. Friend will be aware from reports in the newspapers today of the discussions that Corus has been having with the unions about taking a pay cut and of the other measures being taken to see people through difficult times. Whether we are talking about the steel, automotive or construction industry, the global credit crunch and the recession that we are all facing are bringing enormous challenges to companies, to people who work in them and to Governments. We need to ensure that we are up to the mark and are taking action to support our companies through these difficult times, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

John Thurso: As has already been said, the car manufacturing industry is a major part of British industry, as well as a substantial employer. Given that President-elect Obama has decided that the US car industry is too large to fail, what assessment has the Department made of the potential for a failure in the car industry to give rise to a systemic failure in UK plc? Would the Government consider a similar decision and if so, what criteria would they use to make the judgment?

Patrick McFadden: We are bringing forward measures, as I have said. There is a disjunction between what small businesses are reporting to the hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House and what the banks are saying about the availability of credit. That is precisely why we have brought business and bank representatives together in the Small Business Finance Forum to examine the facts and to find out exactly what is happening in the lending market.

Mark Pritchard: The Minister is a fellow west midlands MP, and he will know that many businesses throughout the region cannot get credit from the banks. Why is it that, within hours of coming to the Government, the banks received a big fat cheque from the taxpayer, when businesses in Shropshire, even after many weeks, cannot get the credit that they need to run their businesses on a day-to-day basis?

Patrick McFadden: It should not take four months for loans to be processed through the small firms loan guarantee scheme, and I will certainly follow that up for my hon. Friend if she gives me the details. The combination of measures that we have taken, including that scheme and the other measures announced in the PBR, are designed precisely to take action in regard to the problem that we are all concerned about—namely, access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses, which are the lifeblood of our economy and which provide so much employment for our constituents.

Patrick McFadden: Our proposals do not include only the existing small firms loan guarantee scheme because, as I said, the Chancellor announced additional measures. As to the right hon. Gentleman's party's proposals, the Conservatives really need to make up their mind. The other day, his party leader attacked us over our level of spending and borrowing; the Conservatives have now announced a new scheme, but we have not yet been told about the balance of risk between the Government and the banks or the exposure of the taxpayer to the scheme. If more action is needed, this Government have said that we will take it, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, unlike in his party, any measures we announce will be properly costed and thought through.

Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of the retail end of the industry and the car dealership networks that exist in the UK. They employ significant numbers of people. While they might not be as geographically concentrated as some of the big automotive plants, the cumulative effect is something like 500,000 people who work in that retail sector. What we said about VED in our pre-Budget report was clear, but I will talk to some of my colleagues and officials in the Treasury to see whether there is more that we might need to do to ensure that that information is widely available. The industry as a whole has welcomed the announcement that we made on VED. We need to ensure that we actively promote it.

David Taylor: In the absence of the Secretary of State, I must rely on my hon. Friend, as his political amanuensis, to interpret Lord Mandelson's views as reported in  The Sunday Times last week. He said that
	"it was up to individual companies to sort out their own future if they ran into trouble... 'We"
	—the Government, that is—
	"'are not going to step in when banks and other lenders are capable of doing it themselves.'"
	What does my hon. Friend think Lord Mandelson meant by that, against a backdrop of potentially the worst economic situation for generations?

Patrick McFadden: My noble Friend the Secretary of State yesterday met with major businesses and the Institute of Credit Management to agree a code of prompt payment from large businesses through their supply chains. The Government have said they will do their best to be a good and responsible customer during this period, and we understand the importance of prompt payment to small businesses. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that this is a job not just for Government, but for the many large businesses upon whom countless thousands of small businesses depend for prompt payment and their day-to-day business.

Greg Mulholland: One important area of British industry that is continually ignored by the Government is the pub industry. There is particular concern at this time of year about the income levels of publicans. May I bring to the Minister's attention the Morgan Stanley report that revealed that between a fifth and a quarter of licensees make under £20,000 a year, which is deemed to be the minimum acceptable level? That equates to £3.30 an hour per couple, which is clearly below the minimum wage. Does the Minister therefore agree that the way in which the big pub companies operate the tie is not fair and that the Government should look at that again?

Alan Williams: I should like to comfort my hon. Friend as I know he gets very anguished about the National Audit Office. It has in fact progressively increased its performance. When I first went on to the Public Accounts Committee—I think it was in 1990—the ratio was 5:1 and at the request of the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Accounts Commission, the ratio has gradually increased to 9:1. A nice ballpark figure for my hon. Friend to remember is that as a result of that, in the last 18 months the NAO has saved the taxpayer £1 billion.

Stuart Bell: Church of England staff have been meeting with officials from the Treasury, the Department for Culture Media and Sport, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Office of the Third Sector and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Church Commissioners encourage continued financial support for the English Heritage and Heritage Lottery Fund places of worship grant scheme. The Church's discussions with the Government are focused on securing equal access to national and local government funding streams, and are ongoing.

Peter Bone: With reference to paragraph 89 of the report of John Tiner into corporate governance arrangements for the National Audit Office, whether the external auditors will be appointed on a rotating basis.

Alan Williams: We agree with John Tiner's recommendation, subject to retaining the requirement that the commission approves the auditors' appointment. The NAO's audit committee will recommend a firm to the NAO board, which will appoint the auditors, subject to the approval of the Public Accounts Commission. The NAO already rotates its auditors—something that concerns the Government—in line with best practice.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for answering the question twice. Would it not have helped if the banks had followed that practice of rotating auditors, as they might not have got into such a mess?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 15 December—Conclusion of the debate on the Queen's Speech. The economy, pensions and welfare will be debated.
	Tuesday 16 December—Estimates (1st Allotted Day). There will be a debate on energy prices, fuel poverty and Ofgem, followed by a debate on dental services. Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	 [The details are as follows: Energy prices, Fuel poverty and Ofgem (Eleventh Report from the Business and Enterprise Committee, HC 293; Government response - Seventh special Report HC1069; and further Oral Evidence of 24 and 25 November); and Dental services (Fifth Report from the Health Committee, HC 289; and Government response - Cm 7470).]
	At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Wednesday 17 December—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill, followed by Third Reading of the Banking Bill, followed by motion to consider the Value Added Tax (Change of Rate) Order 2008, followed by motion to approve a resolution relating to parliamentary pensions. I have tabled that motion today. Copies of the explanatory memorandum and the motion are available from the Vote Office. That will be followed by motions relating to the Electoral Commission.
	Thursday 18 December—Motion on the Christmas recess Adjournment.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 12 January will include:
	Monday 12 January—Second Reading of the Business Rate Supplements Bill.
	Tuesday 13 January—Second Reading of the Saving Gateway Accounts Bill.
	Wednesday 14 January—Opposition Day (1st Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 15 January—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on armed forces personnel.
	We expect to have an oral statement on Equitable Life in the week commencing Monday 12 January.
	I should like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for January will be:
	Thursday 15 January—A debate on the report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee entitled "Policing and Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland: the Cost of Policing the Past".
	Thursday 22 January—A debate on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport annual report 2008.
	Thursday 29 January—A debate on the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Theresa May: I will give the hon. Gentleman that one.
	Following the disclosure yesterday by the chief executive of Ofsted that three children are killed by abuse every week, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is today due to announce a major shake-up in social services under the children's plan. This announcement is in a written statement. Why has the right hon. Gentleman not come to the House to be questioned by Members on this crucial issue?
	When the Government announced approval for two new aircraft carriers in July 2007, the Defence Secretary made an oral statement. Today, when it is widely reported that he is to announce a delay in their approval, the Defence Secretary is making only a written statement, which, I understand, was not even available in the Vote Office or the Library at the start of business questions. That written statement will, of course, prevent Members from asking key questions about the impact on the defence budget, on jobs and on national security. Again, why is the Defence Secretary not making an oral statement to the House?
	Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made an oral statement on welfare reform, but will the Leader of the House explain why, the day before, the right hon. Gentleman released an extract from his statement to the press? That was a blatant disregard of his duty to the House. Will the right hon. and learned Lady reassure us that she will speak to her Cabinet colleagues and tell them that this House takes precedence over the media?
	Last year, in the final business questions before Christmas, I asked the Leader of the House to
	"commit to a debate on the economic slow-down, and the problems in the banking industry and their effects on the housing market".—[ Official Report, 13 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 465.]
	She did not give us a debate in Government time then, and she has not given us that debate a year later—the debates on the economy have been chosen by the Opposition. Given that that the pound has now hit its lowest level against the euro and the German Finance Minister has said that the Government's switch to "crass Keynesianism is breathtaking", when will the Government give us a full debate in Government time on the economy?
	Yesterday, I had a meeting with representatives of Derby and Nottingham chamber of commerce, who expressed dismay at the Government's announcement this week on home information packs. As the housing market continues to plummet, the Housing Minister is cancelling provisions that allowed sellers to put their homes on the market before the HIP was completed. Sellers will now have to wait longer and have a raft of paperwork in place before they can even put their home up for sale, which is hardly the way to stimulate our stagnant property market. Can we have an oral statement from the Housing Minister, so that Members can question her on that ridiculous policy?
	The Leader of the House recently asked the women's institute to put pressure on local newspapers not to carry advertisements for the sex industry. What a pity that she cannot persuade the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to join her campaign. A new report shows that Jobcentre Plus advertised 351 vacancies in the adult entertainment industry last year, including adverts for
	"topless/semi nude bar staff"
	and "nude cleaners". Two jobseekers complained that they were asked to perform sexual services after contacting an employer about a vacancy advertised at Jobcentre Plus. Will the Leader of the House, in her role as Minister for Women, take steps to end this hypocrisy within Government?
	Finally, last week at  The House Magazine "Year ahead in Parliament" conference, when talking about the economy, the right hon. and learned Lady said
	"I know what it's like for everyone, stuck in a job with an outrageous boss".
	How can she possibly say that about the man who saved the world?

Simon Hughes: May I first associate myself with the timely request from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Moffat)? We send our best wishes to Ron Cox, his family and his colleagues.
	May I join the strong protests from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on two matters that are quite inexcusable? First, every week, my constituents ask me about the Equitable Life statement, and I am sure that that is the case, too, for other hon. Members. We tell them, "It is too long before the Government respond to the ombudsman's statement, but there will be a statement before Christmas." Autumn ends on 21 December according to the latest definition, but the statement has now been postponed until the new year. Will the Leader of the House relay to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and to other colleagues that to promise a statement of such importance to so many people, but then not to deliver it, undermines confidence in their ability to respond?
	Secondly, may I make the strongest protest about the fact that, yesterday, we had a full day's debate on foreign affairs and defence, but there was no word of an announcement about the aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The Order Paper, however, shows that there is a written statement today, which clearly indicates that there will be a postponement of that aspect of defence procurement. On behalf of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and of many people with jobs and job interests in all parts of the country, may I say that it is not acceptable to announce good news on the Floor of the House and bad news later, so we cannot quiz the relevant Minister on the basis of the statement, when it is placed in the Library and the Vote Office?
	May I ask the Leader of the House to amend her planning for next week to make sure that the Minister for Trade, Investment and Consumer Affairs appears before the House? On 26 November, there was a credit card summit, at which I gather the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Minister for Trade, Investment and Consumer Affairs asked credit and store card companies to consider a reduction in the amount of interest that they charge on credit cards. Those charges have gone up in the past 12 months to an average 17.7 per cent., which, for most people who face the prospect of having to buy things at Christmas, is not the right way for them to go—they are far too expensive. There is a meeting today between those companies and the Minister for Trade, Investment and Consumer Affairs, at which the companies will report whether they have heeded the Government's request to cut profits and help consumers. Will the Leader of the House make sure that the Minister comes to the House to answer questions, so we can see whether the Government have persuaded those companies that they have to help consumers?
	Next Thursday's business for Westminster Hall is a debate on the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee on human rights around the world, which is very welcome. However, before we break for Christmas, may we have a debate on human rights in this country? May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on what she is going to do about the case of S and Marper, in which the European Court decided that DNA samples from innocent people cannot be kept—many of us have been saying that for a long time—so the Government will have to change their policy? May we have an explanation why my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has resigned as the Government's adviser on constitutional affairs, saying that, after a good start, the Government's recent record was "dismal and deeply disappointing", and why the Government persist in wanting to go ahead with identity cards, even though all the evidence is that they are going to be ridiculously expensive and inefficient?
	Finally, on the business of the House, will the Leader of the House tell us about any follow-up to the debate on Monday, and whether she has had a conversation with you, Mr. Speaker, or your office, about what is going to happen to the Committee that she, with her colleagues, forced on the House against our understanding of your wishes? I am sure that she knows the figures: only one colleague not in the Labour party voted for her position on Monday, and colleagues from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party, Respect and the independent groups voted against her. All but a handful of Labour Ministers were present, but the Government majority was four. If she wants to have the confidence of the House, may we have a new proposal for a Committee, as Mr. Speaker recommended, and may we have it soon?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman returned to the question raised by the shadow Leader of the House about Equitable Life. During the course of business questions in earlier months, I tried to give a sense of timing with regard to when this important statement would come before the House. If hon. Members think that that raised expectations and was insufficiently specific, I could have said, "This statement will come before the House when it is ready", but I was trying to be helpful. It is in that spirit that I say that I hope that there will be an oral statement next week, but we are trying to be as helpful as possible, and the House will recognise that this is a big issue. There is a big report to be considered and we cannot be that specific about when it will be available, but we will try to give as much indication as possible.
	As far as defence procurement is concerned, work is under way on the aircraft carriers that have been procured, and that work will be carried forward. It is important that Government policy is that public procurement, whether in housing, transport or defence, is brought forward, because many jobs depend on it.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about consumer affairs and credit cards. I have said that there will be a debate on Monday on the economy, but we had Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform questions just this morning, when he could have put those questions to Ministers. We know that those issues are important, and that they should be kept before the House, which should be given an opportunity to hear from Ministers as regularly as possible.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned human rights and the European court case that dealt with the retention of DNA. I have two things to say about that. First, I find it ironic that other hon. Members—not the hon. Gentleman—protest about the violation of human rights, but would abolish the Human Rights Act. That is inconsistent. The hon. Gentleman does not share that inconsistency, but if one of his constituents were the victim of crime, they would want the police to be able to find the offender and bring them to justice. DNA evidence is vital in ensuring that the police can find people, especially in cases of rape and other sexual offences. It means that offenders who would have escaped justice are brought before the courts and punished. DNA records are very important in the detection and investigation of crime, but we will, of course, consider the implications of the European court judgment for our policy. When we have considered it, if we have anything to say, no doubt we will say it.
	On the question of the search of the House in relation to the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) will know that the Public Administration Committee is looking into the question of leaks, and the Cabinet Secretary has appeared before that Committee. He made it absolutely clear that he will not comment on any issues that are the subject of a police investigation, and that is rightly the case. The Home Affairs Committee will look into the police search of the House, but when I gave evidence to that Committee the day before yesterday, I suggested that it should not put itself in the position—especially as it is the Home Affairs Committee—of carrying out the same investigation as the police. Progress on the Speaker's Committee, which was the subject of a motion of the House on Monday, is a matter for the Speaker.

Harriet Harman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's welcome of the England cricket team's visit to India. Ministers in our Foreign Office have been highly active, working with their colleagues in the Indian Government and the Pakistan Government. Everybody shares the huge concern and grief for those who lost their lives and were badly injured in Mumbai, and remembers that Pakistan suffered with the Marriott hotel explosion. Not only have our Ministers been active in supporting the fight against terrorism of the Indian and Pakistan Governments—we hope that they work together in that endeavour—but they have been working with the Pakistan and Indian community here. We will continue to be active in international work to tackle terrorism.

Alistair Carmichael: May we have an early debate on the written statement made last week by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the closure of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs offices? As I explained to the House in a point of order yesterday, his statement indicated that the Lerwick office in my constituency would be retained, and that it was not part of the review. At the time that that statement was made, HMRC management were arranging to remove the last of its staff, so we might have an office that is open with nobody working in it. I do not question for a second the good faith of the Financial Secretary, who is a man of integrity who is respected on both sides of the House, but it is clear to me that elements in HMRC management do not feel accountable to anyone. We need to make them accountable, and an early debate in this place would be an important start to that process.

Ann Winterton: The autumn has long since gone but
	"Now is the winter of our discontent"
	because the Prime Minister reneged on a solemn commitment to the House, which was given in the debate on the Queen's Speech last week, that we would have an Equitable Life statement before Christmas. What are we to say to our constituents, most of whom are elderly and many of whom live on modest means? Indeed, some have already died. When will the Government make a statement to ensure that those people are able to live better in the future, because they have been seriously disadvantaged through no fault of their own?

Harriet Harman: That is not the situation at all; we are pressing forward with important defence procurement. Regarding the enthusiasm for that subject shown by Opposition Members, I say to them that receipts coming into the Treasury are decreasing because of stamp duty and the retail sector is declining, so VAT receipts are decreasing. If defence spending is to be maintained at such a time—we have committed to do so—borrowing has to increase. I hope that all of those who want defence procurement to continue will support our decision to allow borrowing to rise.

Robert Key: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport early next week on what has gone wrong with the latest Stonehenge project? It is not just a local or regional issue; it is a matter of national and international concern, because the visitor facilities are a national disgrace. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Transport, and the Treasury are in agreement about the matter and that the problem lies with one or more of the stakeholder partners in the project who cannot agree a compromise? Alternatively, as the chairman of the National Trust wrote in an article entitled "The neglect of our heritage is shameful" in  The Guardian on 12 September, is it the case that
	"In Britain, nobody gives a damn."?

Harriet Harman: It is certainly true that there has been a big focus on Stonehenge, and I know that the hon. Gentleman, as the local Member, has been anxious to be at the forefront of that. He will know that the stakeholders' group met yesterday. It is a question not of whether Stonehenge will, as a site, be improved, protected and made more accessible, but of where the visitors centre will be, and of knocking heads together to ensure proper agreement. It is not that the Government have been holding back, but that we need to work with all the stakeholders to agree where the visitors centre should be.

David Chaytor: May we have a debate on the role and powers of local authority trading standards services because, as trading conditions get more difficult, the likelihood is that there will be more disputes between consumers and retailers? I shall tell the Leader of the House about the long struggle that my constituent, Mr. James McMahon, has had with the major national company, Everest Windows, to get recompense for a faulty product. It took Mr. McMahon two years to fight his case through the county court. He was eventually vindicated and received compensation, but if trading standards services had had the power to intervene more forcefully in civil cases, all of that time, expense and anxiety could have been avoided to the benefit of the consumer and the retailer.

David Heath: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could find time for the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House next week to explain the Highways Agency's extraordinary decision to close entirely the A303 for three months early next year. Aside from the west country, I can think of no region of the country where the main arterial route could be closed for a quarter of the year for the convenience of contractors, rather than in the economic, environmental and social interests of the people whom I represent.

Ian Cawsey: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the strong support across the House for the campaign run by the Federation of Small Businesses to "Keep Trade Local". Is she aware of my early-day motion 107, which calls on hon. Members to move on from that and to support the campaign by procuring their Christmas dinner from local shops and retailers in their constituency?
	 [That this House congratulates the Federation of Small Businesses on their Keep Trade Local campaign; notes that local high streets are increasingly under threat with 2,000 local shops closing each year; believes small businesses form an essential part of local communities and economies; and calls on hon. Members to source their Christmas dinners from small independent retailers in their constituencies in order to support local businesses at this time of economic difficulty.]
	Only 29 Members have signed it so far, but, ever optimistic of the great generosity of all hon. Members, will she encourage Members to sign it and to procure their Christmas dinner from local suppliers, thus making it a merry Christmas not just in their households, but in those of our small retailers?

Harriet Harman: What was said then was that there was an expectation —[Interruption.] Well, it stands to reason, does it not, that if the statement had been ready, it would have been made, so what was being talked about was a statement that was under preparation? The preparation has taken a bit longer than anticipated, but I think that Members are going way beyond things if they are asserting that there has somehow been some calculation about the timing and that Ministers are not acting in good faith. All we have been trying to do is give a reasonable estimate of when the statement might be ready, and the latest estimate is that we hope it will be ready on the week of the 15th.

Harriet Harman: We are very concerned not only that the right defence equipment should be procured, but that the jobs and skills dependent on it are secure. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that with this Government's support for capital expenditure and for public expenditure we will sustain the capital investment that we have announced. Obviously, that involves a question of phasing, which will depend on the circumstances and on priorities. Unlike the Conservative party's policy, our policy is to make sure that we sustain public investment.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the Government consider including in the Bill on political party funding that they announced they will introduce this Session measures to make political parties that receive donations that result from the proceeds of crime return the cash to the people from whom it was stolen? Will the Leader of the House examine the issue?

Crispin Blunt: I am about to write to the hundreds of Equitable Life policyholders who have written to me about their concerns. Could the right hon. and learned Lady offer me a form of words so that I can explain to them, first, that they will have to spend another Christmas in a state of uncertainty and, secondly, why her promise that there will be a statement in the first week back in January is any better than the Prime Minister's statement of a week ago or than her statement last July that this would be dealt with in the autumn?
	May I also emphasise to the Leader of the House that the treatment of today's written statement on defence equipment is disgraceful? May I suggest that she takes some advice on the difference between personnel and equipment when she suggests that we will debate this next January?

Harriet Harman: The question of defence spending is a question of prioritisation between different sorts of equipment available for our armed forces personnel. Therefore, I was assuming that if Members were to catch the Speaker's eye during the debate that will be held on our first week back, the question of what equipment is available for our armed forces would be within the remit of that debate. I was trying to assist hon. Members by saying that there would be an opportunity to debate these concerns. The hon. Gentleman does not need to patronise me and assume that I do not know the difference between a tank and somebody serving in the Army—I do.
	On Equitable Life, I can only say what I have already said; I do not want to repeat it too often, but this was an expectation —[Interruption.] There was an expectation of when the statement would be ready, and I tried to assist the House by sharing that expectation with it. Hon. Members should be focused not only on the timing, but on what we are focused on: the substance of ensuring that we get the answer right on Equitable Life.

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate on the issues contained in early-day motion 229, which is about mobile termination rates?
	 [ That this House notes that mobile telephones remain a popular gift for Christmas time, with an estimated one million telephones waiting under the tree this year; but regrets that in spite of this popularity, fixed and mobile customers in the UK will be charged in excess of £3 billion in unnecessary call charges in 2009 due to mobile termination rates; and calls on Ofcom to take immediate action to lower these outdated and unnecessary charges so that consumers can get a better deal from their new mobiles this Christmas. ]
	This Christmas many of our constituents will receive mobile telephones as presents, but £3 billion of unnecessary call charges will also be under the Christmas tree. May we therefore have a debate to explore those costs and expose the companies responsible, either on the Floor of the House or elsewhere with the Minister for Consumer Affairs?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friends in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform have been looking into the issue to ensure that there is no unfair charging. One of the things that my hon. Friend and others will welcome is the fact that the VAT reduction of 2½ per cent., which I am afraid Opposition Members have so derided, will help people with their mobile phone charge bills.

Bob Russell: There is a sense of betrayal on the island of St. Helena at the Government's failure to build an airport, which has been promised for many years. On Monday, there was a written statement, which said that there had been "a pause in negotiations". For "pause" read: the dead hand of the Treasury cancelling the project. May I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 175, which is about the airport for the island of St. Helena, an overseas dependency, and reinstating the airport project?
	 [ That this House agrees with the people and government of the island of St Helena that the construction of an airport is crucial for the island's economic future; notes that the British Government has for many years promised that an airport would be constructed, and that plans had reached an advanced stage where the award of a contract to build an airport was imminent; is therefore appalled at the announcement, by means of a Written Statement on 8 December 2008 by the Secretary of State for International Development, that there is now a pause in negotiations over the St Helena airport project which brings it to a halt; believes that the dead hand of the Treasury is responsible for the betrayal of this loyal overseas dependent territory; and calls on the Government to proceed with the award of a contract for the construction of an airport on the island of St Helena without further delay. ]
	An airport is the only way in which the island and its people can have an economic future.

Nigel Evans: Is it possible to have an early debate on the "Alice in Wonderland" workings of the Child Support Agency? I have a constituent with four children who is separated from her husband. She made a claim from the father, who built up arrears, but when one of the children went to live with the father temporarily, while he was doing an education or training course, the father claimed from the mother, who had to pay him. That is absolutely nonsensical. As BT said, "It's good to talk." Is there any chance of the people in the Child Support Agency talking to one another, at least so that the payments that the mother would otherwise have made could be taken out of his arrears?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman should not minimise the important work done through the Child Support Agency. If people have children, they should be responsible for their financial upkeep and should not expect the taxpayer to foot the bill. The Child Support Agency has to deal with complex family circumstances, and he has just illustrated that. The more people who do not pay up and have to be chased, the more difficult it is for the CSA to devote its time to sorting out those sensitive and difficult cases. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will welcome the fact that the Queen's Speech said that we will introduce a Bill—this was the subject of yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—so that all child support payments will be disregarded in income-related benefits. That means that when parents—usually fathers—pay up, all the money will go to the children.

Simon Burns: Next week, will the Leader of the House investigate and make a statement on what seems to be a significant problem relating to the setting up of the regional Select Committees, resulting from the sloppy drafting of an amendment? If she looks at  Hansard for 12 November, she will see that amendment (a) to her main motion, tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), inserted the words:
	"except that Chairmen of regional select committees shall not be paid."—[ Official Report, 12 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 810.]
	I understand the intention of that amendment, but because of its sloppy drafting, it means that no hon. Member can be the Chairman of a regional Select Committee— because all hon. Members are paid, as Members of Parliament.

Tony McNulty: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on benefits uprating, particularly in the context of the Government's commitment to provide real support to people in the current economic climate. I will, as usual, place full details of the uprating in the Vote Office and arrange for the figures to be published in the  Official Report.
	As in previous years, I can confirm that most national insurance benefits will rise by September's retail prices index, which is up by 5 per cent. Most income-related benefits will be uprated by September's Rossi index, which is RPI less housing costs, and is up by 6.3 per cent.
	We are not alone in experiencing the shock waves reverberating through the world's economic systems. Effects emanating from the epicentre of the American banking system are being felt around the globe. We believe that when the economic situation is more difficult, people need all the help they can get to deal with the situation. When things get tougher, people need more help, which is why our response to the current climate is twofold.
	We are focusing not only on providing immediate support for those who lose their jobs; we are also determined to continue with our radical programme of welfare reform, to ensure that those further away from the labour market are not forgotten, as they have been in the past. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made clear yesterday in his statement to the House, we are not going to repeat the mistakes of the past. During the recessions of the '80s and '90s, hundreds of thousands were shuffled on to inactive benefits to keep the unemployment count down. They were trapped there without support, and abandoned. In contrast, we are investing an extra £1.3 billion in helping people to find work now, and we are bringing forward proposals to increase requirements on people the longer they are out of a job, to ensure that they do not fall out of touch with the world of work.
	We believe that work is the best welfare, and we are committed to ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to improve their prospects and those of their families. The proposals in our White Paper are based on the simple ideas that no one should be left behind, and that virtually everyone should be required to take up the support that we know works, to help them to prepare for and look for work. But we recognise that, for those who are receiving benefits, we need to uprate the value of this safety net to reflect changes in the cost of living.
	We propose, therefore, that most working-age income-related benefits will increase in line with the Rossi index, at 6.3 per cent. This means, for example, that the personal allowance for a single person over the age of 25 will increase from £60.50 a week to £64.30 a week. The amount for a couple will increase from £94.95 to £100.95. Child-related allowances that may be payable in the income-related benefits will be increased in parallel with child tax credit rates by almost 7 per cent., from £52.59 to £56.11. This is essential to ensure that families receiving these benefits see the full value of any increase in child tax credit. We have already announced in the pre-Budget report that we are bringing forward April's increase in child benefit to January. This will be worth an additional £22, on average, to families. The standard rate of statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance will increase in line with prices by 5 per cent., from £117.18 to £123.06.
	In April 2009, incapacity benefit will be uprated by the same index as the employment and support allowance—the Rossi index, instead of the retail prices index—in order to prevent rate differences widening over time. No incapacity benefit customers with age additions will, as we proposed in the welfare reform Green Paper, have their rates frozen. Instead, the cash increase in their overall benefit will be at least half of Rossi, until they are transferred to the employment and support allowance. The additions will therefore be phased out more gradually than previously planned. Incapacity benefit claimants with an age addition, including those formerly on invalidity benefit, will not receive less than £95.15 a week—the same as someone in the support group on contributory employment and support allowance.
	In these difficult times, we must also continue our strategy of providing support for all, and more for those who need it most. This means that for older people, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced recently, from April 2009, the basic state pension will increase to £95.25 per week, which is up by £4.55. For couples, the standard rate will rise to £152.30. These increases, against a backdrop of falling inflation, are in line with the highest level of inflation this year—5 per cent.—and represent a real-terms rise in the state pension of 7 per cent. since 1997. And for pensioners on the lowest incomes, from April 2009 we will see the biggest increase in the pension credit guarantee since its introduction in 2003. The standard minimum guarantee will rise from next April by £5.95 a week for single pensioners and £9.10 for couples. That means that from April next year, no single pensioner need live on less than £130 a week, and no couple on less than £198.45 a week. That is an increase of £31 for a single pensioner and £45 for couples since 1997.
	This above-earnings increase in the guarantee credit underlines our ongoing determination to tackle pensioner poverty, with 900,000 pensioners lifted out of relatively low income since 1998, after housing costs, and £13 billion more will be spent on pensioners in 2008-09, compared with what would have been spent if we had continued the policies that we inherited in 1997, over half of which is going on the poorest third of pensioners. Tax and benefit changes will mean that the poorest one third of pensioner households will be on average £2,100 a year, or about £40 per week, better off in 2008-09 than under the 1997 system.
	But of course, the Government recognise the difficulties that pensioners face when prices increase. That is why, alongside the winter fuel payment, which is worth £200 for those aged 60 to 79 and £300 for those aged 80 or over, this winter there will be additional payments of £50 for those aged 60 to 79 and £100 for households with someone aged 80 and over. This will take the total direct help with fuel costs for pensioners this year to £250 for those aged between 60 and 79 and £400 for those aged 80 or over.
	The pre-Budget report also announced additional direct financial support in the form of a £60 payment that will benefit not just pensioners, but all the estimated 15 million people who receive the Christmas bonus. This will take the total value of the Christmas bonus this year to £70, and is equivalent to bringing forward the uprating of the state pension from April 2009 to January 2009.
	All these measures demonstrate the Government's commitment to supporting pensioners, just as we are also committed to increasing the support on offer for those of working age. Our new proposals for lone parents and disabled people, for partners and for those facing multiple barriers to work, build on the steps that we have taken over the past 10 years to bring the advantages of an active, responsive welfare state to all those who can benefit. Today's uprating continues our progress towards a fair and inclusive society that offers opportunity and independence for all. It reinforces our commitments to tackle poverty and exclusion and to ensure security in retirement. I commend this statement to the House.

Nigel Waterson: I begin by thanking the Minister for his usual courtesy in letting me have sight of his statement in advance.
	The Conservatives support the uprating of benefits. Anything that will help hard-pressed individuals and families at this difficult time is welcome, especially as this Government's own policies have contributed so much to the economic downturn and to its likely duration and severity. Every day brings new job losses, including the extremely bad news from Woolworths only yesterday. Will the Minister share with the House his projections for unemployment levels over the next 12 months? I also wonder whether he has an up-to-date figure for the amounts paid out by his Department due to fraud and error. On welfare reform, the Minister knows that he will have our support, if the Government are really serious about tackling these hugely important issues.
	We welcome the increase in the state pension, which will then be worth, as we have heard, £95.25 a week and £152.30 for a couple. Perhaps the Minister will join me in pointing out to the leader of the Liberal Democrats that it is not £30 a week. Will the Minister tell us exactly when the Government intend to restore the link with earnings for the state pension?
	We know that £5 billion of benefits go unclaimed by pensioners every year, so what are the Government doing to increase take-up? About 40 per cent. of those entitled to council tax benefit do not claim it, and 1.8 million are not claiming pension credit. Will the Minister restore the boosting of take-up as a departmental priority? The Government's decision to reduce the period of backdating from 12 to three months for pension credit claims suggests that they are more interested in saving money than in increasing take-up. Will the Minister confirm that at least 110,000 pensioners will be adversely affected by that change, and that they will tend to be older pensioners?
	There are already 2.5 million pensioners living in poverty in this country, so how are the Government going to tackle that disgraceful state of affairs? We naturally welcome the extra £60 and so forth, but does that really tackle the problems faced daily by our older citizens? Help the Aged describe the pre-Budget report as
	"a truly skinflint package for the UK's older citizens. The chilling message from the Chancellor is 'keep struggling'".
	Age Concern said of the same report that it
	"will still leave many of the oldest and poorest pensioners...paying the price for the economic downturn."
	Falling interest rates may be popular with some people—indeed, with many people—but there is one section of the population for whom they are really bad news. Does the Minister recognise that many pensioners are facing real hardship because their hard-won savings are now attracting very low interest? Now there is talk about interest rates reaching even zero. We are talking about people who have done the right thing, and what successive Governments told them to do: they saved during their working lives so that their savings could supplement their income in retirement. To add insult to injury, those with modest savings are assumed to earn 10 per cent. on their savings when it comes to eligibility for pension credit. In these times of falling interest rates, that is surely total nonsense. I am sure that pensioners would love to get 10 per cent. on their savings, but in Brown's bankrupt Britain, that idea is pure fantasy. Will the Minister please undertake to approach the Treasury as a matter of urgency to right this wrong?
	Will the Minister confirm that he is wholly confident that the new personal accounts system will begin on schedule in 2012, and that it will definitely come in at or below a 0.5 per cent. cost base? Is he confident that the crucial issue of the relationship with means-tested benefits will be addressed in good time so that we do not have hundreds of thousands of people who are no better off, or worse off, as a result of being auto-enrolled into personal accounts?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the Government intend to do in respect of deregulatory measures to encourage defined benefit provision? Is there an intention to add any such measures to the welfare reform Bill?
	This Government have presided over the closure of more than 70,000 occupational pension schemes since 1997, yet we know such schemes are likely to provide a significantly more comfortable retirement than personal accounts ever will? Why have the Government given up on final salary schemes?
	The Prime Minister may think that he is saving the world, but is it not high time he got round to repairing our broken society?

Ann Cryer: Perhaps I ought to declare an interest, in that I am a pensioner.
	On behalf of my many constituents who are in receipt of benefits, I appreciate my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that in parts of Yorkshire, certainly in west Yorkshire where I live, we have had an awful winter—although I am not blaming him for that? The winter fuel allowance of £250 for those between 60 and 79 and £400 for those over 80 is much appreciated, but that money will quickly go if the weather of the past week or two continues into the new year. Will there be a supplement later if the severe weather continues in Scotland and the north of England?
	The comments of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions yesterday about single parents are related to those of my right hon. Friend the Minister. Most single parents are not single parents by choice. That situation is visited upon them by a husband—usually—who has left. I am sure that those single parents would prefer to be in work, training, or further or higher education, but they can do that, especially if they have more than one child, only if there is adequate provision of day nurseries. Will the Minister assure me that day nurseries will be provided in every area where they may be needed?

Peter Lilley: As the Minister knows, I fully support in principle the welfare reforms that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday and to which he himself has referred today, but on the assumption that they would save money rather than cost money. Can he clarify that point? Outside the House, he and his colleagues have suggested that the reforms will, on balance, save the taxpayer money, but in the House yesterday the Secretary of State said that the reckless borrowing in the pre-Budget report—he was quoting a Conservative Member—was necessary because
	"it allocated an extra £1 billion and this White Paper allocates still further money."—[ Official Report, 10 December 2008; Vol.485, c. 541.]
	The Minister said today that that further money would amount to £1.3 billion. Will he tell us whether the programme will cost money and require extra borrowing, or save money and reduce the borrowing and the cost to the taxpayer?

Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have received any indication that the Prime Minister intends to come to the House to correct the statement that he made on 3 December about the Government's response to the report on Equitable Life. He was quite specific last week, when he said:
	"There will be a statement before the House rises at Christmas. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that that will be done... There will be a statement before the House rises this Christmas."—[ Official Report, 3 December 2008; vol. 485, c. 38.]
	We learnt this morning that the statement would not be made until January, but I and other Members have written to constituents telling them that there would be a statement before Christmas on the back of what the Prime Minister said.
	We have been misled by the Prime Minister's statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Prime Minister now come to the House to correct his statement, or ensure that the Chancellor comes to the House before Christmas and makes a statement on Equitable Life as promised?

Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and I have raised this matter persistently. If either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor does not feel able to come to the House and respond to the specific question asked by the right hon. Lady, can we at least have an apology and an explanation? We have had neither today. All we have had is an announcement that a statement will not be made by the date by which we were told that one would be made. There may be a good reason for that, although it is difficult to understand how the Prime Minister could be confident last week but cannot be confident this week. However, surely the House and our constituents deserve at least some factual explanation of why a statement made last week has been undermined and contradicted by a ministerial statement made this afternoon.

Andrew Murrison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on what we are to make of Secretaries of State who attend the House to make a contribution when on the same day we see in the press leaks of a very significant nature that have to do with vital national interests. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), is it not a disgrace that such matters should be gleaned from the press without this House having the opportunity to quiz adequately and fully the relevant Minister?

Debate on the Address
	 — 
	[5th Day]

Andrew Lansley: I beg to move,
	As an Amendment to the Address, at end add 'but regret the absence of measures in the Gracious Speech to deliver reforms which would make public services genuinely accountable to patients and parents; believe that the measures proposed offer no prospect of raising long-term productivity or value for money in public services; object to the absence of measures to reduce bureaucracy; regret the failure to abolish centrally-dictated targets and support public services focused on outcomes; note the lack of commitment to improve public health and outcomes to reduce health inequalities; regret the failure to provide patients with meaningful information to improve local accountability; deplore the failure to bring forward proposals on social care; further regret the lack of measures to break the link between poverty and educational achievement and to raise standards in literacy; call for proposals to tackle the United Kingdom's declining position in international education league tables and to give pupils in state schools the opportunity to sit the best examinations; note the lack of proposals to ensure higher standards of child protection; further regret the absence of measures to reverse the decline of science and to make schools accountable to parents rather than bureaucrats; and seek long-term reform of public services rather than short-term palliatives.'.
	Interestingly, in his speech last Wednesday at the commencement of these debates, the Prime Minister sought to upstage the Queen's Speech itself. It was not hard to do; we knew the Queen's Speech would be thin, but it turned out to be skeletal. I do not object to having fewer Bills—

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that.
	Legislative hyper-activity and lack of delivery are the story of this Government—I am now waiting for another "Hear, hear" from the hon. Gentleman—but if the Government propose legislation, one would at least expect that it might be original, purposeful and substantive. On health, the Government's approach is none of those. It is certainly not original.
	Almost three years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and I called for an NHS constitution to be established in primary legislation, and the Government are now following our lead, but do their plans have the necessary purpose? The Government's plan is to construct an NHS constitution that, by their own admission, does not extend new legal rights to NHS services. That is astonishing; their consultation states to the public that they are not setting out to create any new legal rights. All the rights or pledges could be provided under existing powers. Even the much-vaunted new legal right to choose can be, and indeed probably will be, established by a direction issued by the Secretary of State under existing legislation. NHS bodies can already be required by direction under existing legislation to comply with any of these rights or pledges, and certainly to have regard to them.
	So what does the Government's proposal—the centrepiece of the Queen's Speech so far as health is concerned—achieve? It achieves this: the Prime Minister said he wanted a constitution, so he has to have one. I wonder whether Ministers are even aware of how meaningless their response to the prime ministerial commitment has become. However, I think the public and the people who work in the NHS do know. The consultation issued this summer on the NHS constitution resulted in 1,008 replies to the Department of Health, including just 178 from NHS staff. That is not even one response for each NHS hospital; not even one in 5,000 NHS staff could be bothered to reply.
	No doubt Ministers think that silence betokens consent. I do not think so; I think silence means contempt—contempt for the Government, where NHS staff feel that responding to the Government is pointless because they do not listen. In a top-down culture, what price consultation? When gimmicks abound, why should NHS staff have given this particular Government proposal any more credence? We will see whether Ministers listen to consultation. Three weeks ago, another consultation on the pharmacy White Paper ended, with 80,000 responses received. If consultation means anything, the Secretary of State will say this afternoon that the Government will make no changes to the existing GP dispensing arrangements because he has listened to the results of that consultation. I challenge him to do so.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. The great majority of orthodontic work is provided privately, but work for children whose oral health would otherwise be prejudiced is done through the NHS. That is very difficult to access, and can often lead to the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers. It is important that we ensure that children get good access. I was in a hospital recently and the staff told me about the rising numbers of children with dental caries presenting to hospitals as a consequence of an inability to access NHS dentistry. That will get worse. I do not know whether Ministers are aware of it, but from the coming year many primary care trusts will tell their dentists that they cannot have children-only contracts. So NHS dentistry will be taken away from children whose parents are not accessing NHS dentistry. That is a scandal, and I hope that Ministers will do something about it.

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman makes a different point. I am not asking dentists to tell parents that they should be private patients. The point that I am making is that dentists who offer NHS services should not take NHS access away from children if they are already registered with them. That is what will happen. If he is suggesting that we should see the number of children accessing NHS dentistry falling, with all the potential consequences for poor oral health, I would be surprised. That seems contrary to many of the things that I have heard him say in the past.
	A central and joint responsibility for both Secretaries of State—and also at the centre of our concerns—is children's health. The Department for Children, Schools and Families is pushing for a child health strategy to be published, but the Department of Health is letting that drift. That will not do. I hope that the Secretary of State for Health will now tell us when he will publish that child health strategy.
	Drift will not do either when it comes to the protection of vulnerable children. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has responded to the latest tragic events in Haringey by announcing a review by Herbert Laming and the establishment of a task force. The Select Committee was told yesterday by Ofsted that three children a week die from abuse or neglect, which is a compelling case for urgent action.
	The joint area review of children's services in Haringey illustrated one of the important points with painful clarity:
	"the reliance on national and local performance indicators is too great and does not enable understanding of the quality and effectiveness of service provision on the ground."
	When we respond, as we must, to the tragic baby P case, I hope that Ministers recognise—and perhaps use this afternoon to say—that constant structural change and a tick-box, top-down attitude will not do for protecting children. We have to move on from that.
	Like other hon. Members present this afternoon, I remember when the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), responded in the House to Lord Laming's report on the Victoria Climbié inquiry. He announced the creation of children's trusts, even though Lord Laming had not recommended them. That is an example of the Government offering a structural solution in a way that Lord Laming had not asked for. It did a disservice to Lord Laming's report from six years ago to offer a structural response to the problem that he identified.
	In his report, Lord Laming stated:
	"I am convinced that it is not just structures that are the problem but the skills of the staff that work in them...The single most important change in the future must be the drawing of a clear line of accountability from top to bottom without doubt or ambiguity about who is responsible at every level for the welfare of vulnerable children".
	How can it be that, six years later, it took weeks of public pressure in the same borough of Haringey for such accountability to be brought to bear, for the facts to be exposed and for those at the most senior levels to accept responsibility? We must all take responsibility for the fact that things that Lord Laming asked for, and which were understood early in 2003, were clearly not being put into effect culturally in the social work profession and in those services with responsibility for children. It is important that we make sure that that accountability is in place now, and that we recognise the need for improvements in skills.
	In 2006, in the absence of Government action in that respect, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), set up the Opposition's own commission to look into how to improve the training, recruitment, status and perception of social workers. Its report was published in 2007, and I urge the Government to look at some of the examples that are available, including work done on this side of the House. Instead of starting again from year zero, with another task force and another report that will take a great deal of time to prepare, they should think about how we can do things.
	I shall take one example from our report. It suggests that we should recognise that experienced social workers far too often go into hierarchies of management and are not retained on the front line. The report proposes that we should recognise the need for them to be retained in front-line care and that, to make that happen, we should create a structure of consultant social workers.
	I urge the Government not to push every issue off to a new review or task force. We need to think—by all means on a cross-party basis—about the things that need to be done now that we know can make a difference in the short term.

Andrew Lansley: No, I gave way to the hon. Gentleman earlier, and I want to finish my speech, because time does not permit me to go on too long.
	Two years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and I said that the Government and the NHS should focus on outcomes, not targets. This summer, Lord Darzi's report endorsed the emphasis on outcomes, but it did not actually get rid of the targets. On Monday, the Secretary of State published the new operating framework and it is still littered with targets. We know what dominates the thinking of NHS managers—the so-called must-do targets, not the outcomes that in reality matter most for patients.
	The Conservatives will focus on what we need to achieve the outcomes for the people whom we are here to serve, not on how people in services go about achieving them. Of course, performance management has to follow evidence of effectiveness and benchmarked performance, but objective measures such as standardised mortality rates should be mixed with more subjective ones, such as patient experience and self-reported outcomes. All those things should also be benchmarked against the best in the world.
	When evidence was published by the Healthcare Commission of the scale of adverse events and harm resulting to patients, it was entirely typical of the Government that their response was, "Well that's all right, it's about the same level as elsewhere in the world". Ministers seem to be prepared to use international benchmarking only when it justifies the level of error in the NHS. They do not use international benchmarking for infections and admit that our MRSA rates are much higher than best practice or that our rates of clostridium difficile can be four times the average for other hospital systems. They do not use international benchmarks to admit that our cancer survival rate is a quarter worse than the best in Europe, that our stroke mortality is a third worse than Germany's or that deaths from lung disease in the UK are two thirds worse than the European average. The NHS should be focused on those issues. That is what is most important, not whether every PCT sets up a Darzi centre.
	The Government talk about world-class commissioning. We need world-class services, but we will not get them with a one-size, top-down bureaucratic approach. We will get them through innovation, professionalism, responsiveness to patients and the rigorous application of evidence-based care. Treat the staff of the NHS like drones, and they will behave like drones; trust them like professionals, and they will respond.
	The Government have de-professionalised the NHS, which is why they have seen declining productivity year on year. That is why, despite their targets, performance has fallen short. Patient choice has diminished—fewer patients say that they have experienced access to choice—and practice-based commissioning has stalled. Patient experience measures have deteriorated, and the foundation trust programme has not met its 2008 targets. Health inequalities have widened— [ Interruption. ] The Minister of State says that I do not like targets. What is the point of targets if they do not deliver? What was the point of saying that every hospital should be a foundation trust by 2008, when only about half of them are?
	The Minister of State may like to recall that back in 2006, Tony Blair described his four drivers for health reform—patient choice, foundation hospitals, independent sector treatment centres and practice-based commissioning. All four have stalled or disappeared from the reform process. The Blairite reforms have gone. What do we have in their place—world-class commissioning? It does not feel world-class yet.
	We will not have world-class NHS services unless the Government recognise what is really needed—to trust NHS professionals, to make the service more accountable to patients and less to top-down bureaucracy, to reinvigorate our public health service and to focus at every level on patient outcomes. We are committed to reforms that would make a real difference to patients and NHS staff. For the Government it is all Darzi or drift; it is about money spent and money wasted; it is all inputs and not enough outputs.
	The Queen's Speech is all short-term gimmicks and does not include the long-term reform that our great public services so badly need. The Government have run out of steam—they are out of ideas and out of time. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney—bring on the election. I commend the amendment to the House.

Jeremy Wright: May I return the Secretary of State to dementia? He said that the national dementia strategy will be published shortly. As he knows, there are three elements to the welcome work that the Government are doing on dementia: first, there is the national strategy; secondly, there is the research summit; and thirdly, there is the review of anti-psychotic medication. The timetable has slipped quite significantly in relation to all those elements, and he will recognise the concern of all those involved that the urgency originally expressed by the former Minister with responsibility for care services, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) does not appear to have been persisted with, which is a matter of extreme concern. Will the Secretary of State assist us by saying exactly when each of those elements will be available?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an extremely long intervention—I think that the hon. Gentleman has more than made his point. I call Mr Andrew Lansley to make his point of order.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I wish that I had not given way, because she has stolen my thunder; that point was in my peroration. I can give her the assurance she seeks. Of course, all these measures take money. Earlier this year, the shadow Secretary of State talked about £28 billion more going into health under the Tories, but we have not heard what will happen. We have not heard whether they would match the spending that we announced on Monday in 2010-11. I would be interested to hear about that before the end of the debate because the spending is important, if we are to do all the things that we want to do on mental health and other issues.
	Before I gave way, I was going to say, "And the suicide rate has fallen to its lowest level since records began in 1848." That will teach me. One in four people will experience an episode of mental illness at some point in their life. Mental illnesses such as depression are one of the leading causes of disability in this country, and 42 per cent. of people on incapacity benefit are on it because of a mental health problem. Until recently, access to psychological therapy was limited, even though, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, it is widely acknowledged as the most effective way of treating mild to moderate depression.
	As recently as seven years ago, only 9 per cent. of people with depression or anxiety were offered psychological therapy by the NHS. In October 2007, I announced that there would be a rapid expansion of access. The 13 new psychological therapy pilots that I launched a year ago have treated 17,500 people. This month, 35 primary care trusts launched their services; that is 15 more than we had anticipated. By 2011, we will have recruited 3,600 therapists, who will have helped to treat 900,000 people. Those are just some of the many developments that led the World Health Organisation in October to describe mental health services in this country as the best in Europe. In schools and children's services, there has been similarly dramatic progress.

Alan Johnson: I will make some progress, if my hon. Friend does not mind. There has been a significant expansion in child care and early years education, and greater achievement by pupils at all key stages. More young people than ever before are going on to study at university. Far from variable tuition fees discouraging poorer people from going to university, the social class gap in higher education is narrowing; it grew in the 40 years after the Robbins report. I point that out to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who, I remember, engaged in the debates on the issue.
	One of the defining moments of this Government came when we pledged to eradicate child poverty by 2020. That has been one of the most important catalysts for improving the life chances for children in this country. In October, the OECD reported that there has been faster growth in income equality in the UK than in any other developed country, and that the poverty rate had fallen well below the international average. It described the achievements in this country as "remarkable". There are now 600,000 fewer children living in relative poverty than when we took office, and the number of children living in absolute poverty has halved, yet we need to do still more. The measures set out in the Gracious Speech will strengthen children's trust boards, so that they can lead on local improvements to services. There will be a Bill to raise standards in schools and improve education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds and enhance the skills of those already in the workplace. We will also introduce a Bill that will convert our pledge to eradicate child poverty altogether by 2020 into a legislative commitment.
	On health, we need to adapt to meet new challenges. An ageing population and the prevalence of lifestyle diseases such as obesity bring different pressures on health and on social care. Smoking, poor diet and lack of exercise account for the majority of the disease burden in this country. The next stage review, led by my noble Friend Lord Darzi of Denham, set out how we would ensure that the NHS promotes good health and well-being as effectively as it detects and treats illness.

Norman Lamb: I welcome the equality Bill, but one has to ask why age has been left out of the list of discrimination that the NHS constitution seeks to tackle. We all know that age discrimination happens in the NHS. There is clear discrimination in mental health services: for example, elderly people who suffer from depression and anxiety do not have access to cognitive behavioural therapy. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) is right that we should deal with discrimination based on age as well as that based on other matters.
	The amendment encapsulates the priorities that we should address, although I do not believe that the Conservative programme tackles them properly or effectively. They include quality of care and outcomes, on which it is right to focus, as well as accountability. Sadly, the Conservative approach—establishing an independent national quango—would reduce rather than increase accountability, but the amendment is right to refer to it. It also mentions the need to tackle bureaucracy, to ensure value for money, to have a renewed focus on public health—the area that has so often suffered when the finances have got tight—and to tackle health inequalities.
	Earlier this year, a King's Fund report said:
	"If the NHS constitution did not confer any legally enforceable rights or guarantees it would, similar to the Patients' Charter"—
	that was the thing that the Conservatives came up with—
	"before it, be seen as a political device that simply raises expectations, which then cannot be met. Indeed it would hardly be worthy of being called a constitution."
	That identifies the real risk of this document, which is that it will raise expectations. People will assume that will deliver something to them that is not being delivered, but ultimately it will amount to motherhood and apple pie, and there will be no extra delivery.
	Will there be any legally enforceable rights or entitlements within this constitution? It seems that there will not be; the sanctions for breaching the NHS constitution do not appear anywhere. Trusts will have to "have regard to" things—that wonderful legal phraseology means, of course, absolutely nothing, because one can be acting entirely within the legal framework if one has regard to something and then entirely ignores it.  [Interruption.] I shall ignore the abuse from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), which is so uncharacteristic. The proposals contain a reference to the responsibilities of patients, but what does it amount to? There is no substance to it.
	What about the issue of missed appointments? Missed appointments cause the NHS enormous additional costs, and many are avoidable. We can do a lot to reduce the number of missed appointments, by using technology and sending text messages, emails and so on—but should we not be considering the idea of charging people, where appropriate? We should recognise that some people's condition means that they may be unreliable —[Interruption.] Well, there was a great intake of breath from the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), but if we are talking about responsibilities, where are they set out? They appear to be entirely nebulous. If we are not talking about responsibilities in any meaningful sense, we should not even use the word.

Barry Sheerman: It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this important debate.
	Sometimes we on the Back Benches wish that there were a curb on Front-Bench speeches. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) spoke for 35 minutes. I almost lost the will to live. I say that because half of the debate time today has been taken up by Front-Bench spokesmen. No wonder the Chamber is so sparsely attended on an important debate on education and health, when Back Benchers turn up and have to wait so long to make a short contribution. It is disappointing sometimes to see the way in which those on the Back Benches are treated. I make that as a general point, Madam Deputy Speaker. You know that I can get irritable, because a long time ago you were one of my students and knew that I was an irritable lecturer. However, I will get on with my speech and try to make it reasonably lively.
	Twenty years ago, we had the Education Reform Act 1988, which most of us associate with the now Lord Baker. Some important reforms were introduced: testing and assessment, which is taken very seriously, the national curriculum, and the inspection service. The Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families, which I have the privilege to chair, is going through them. We have conducted a major inquiry on testing and assessment, have come to the end of an inquiry into the national curriculum, and are going to take a thorough look at inspection. In a sense, I always try to use the Queen's Speech to say what is happening in terms of the progress that we have made over the past 20 years. Too often in the Chamber, we make party political points against one another, but if we took a more historical view, we would see that we agree on quite a lot of issues—but not all of them. We fundamentally disagree on some of them, and I shall come back to that.
	It is part of a Select Committee's job to attempt to establish the value for taxpayers' money and the progress that is made over a longer period. It is with great interest that we look at this Queen's Speech. It is quite thin, but it does include a portmanteau education Bill. There is an awful lot in it to do with education: from training and apprenticeships to the reform of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; measures to promote equality; the introduction of primary legislation to enshrine the child poverty targets for 2020; and the general aim to help families and businesses. I make no apology for concentrating on families and children in my remarks.
	The newish Select Committee that I chair is different. Being Chairman of a Select Committee was a simpler task in the past because the Chairman called one Department to account. The responsibility is much more complex with children, schools and families, which I am told span 10 different Departments, if we follow families and children across those arbitrary divisions. The needs of families and children do not pay any respect to those artificial divisions between, for example, health and education.
	It would be wrong if, at this time, with the enormous public interest in the welfare of children—particularly the most vulnerable children in our society—I did not spend a little time talking about them. It happens that one of the Select Committee's decisions was to show that we were taking our responsibility for children seriously, and for the past few months we have been looking intensively at the whole area of children in care—looked-after children. We have been taking that very seriously and have learned a great deal. As soon as one gets into this territory, the vocabulary and acronyms are different, and there is a tremendous learning curve, which members of the Committee have enjoyed.
	As we approached the end of the inquiry, we were hit by the awful tragedy of baby P. As we studied the ramifications of the baby P case, we learnt very quickly not just how many children become vulnerable each year, but how many children's lives are ended when they are murdered by their parents or carers. The figures given to the Committee only yesterday by the chief inspector of schools were chilling indeed. During the early part of the debate about baby P, we were given figures from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children stating that a child was murdered between once a week and once every 10 days; the chief inspector suggested that the figure was nearer to three children each week.
	The issue is very serious, but it must be dealt with in a balanced way. When a tragedy such as this occurs, we need to establish what happened, and whether it is a one-off case or whether there are systemic problems to be addressed. The Secretary of State has moved very quickly in facing up to that responsibility. Unfortunately, we have seen yet another regrettable attempt by the British media to conduct a trial by television and newspapers even before the facts are known. I believe that we have a heavy responsibility to introduce some balance to that knee-jerk attitude to every crisis, and put it into perspective.
	What went on in Haringey was not good. I have been given privileged access to some of the documents involved, and they are very disturbing indeed. What do we learn from this case? We certainly learn that the role of Ofsted needs to be re-evaluated. The evidence that we took yesterday caused me to worry about just how often inspectors enter local authority children's departments, how close they get to those departments, how often they go to meetings, meet real people and discuss the issues across the table, and to what extent inspections are paper-based.
	As I listened to the chief inspector's evidence yesterday, I had the impression that Ofsted's system, which is not bad for the purpose of evaluating schools, has been transported to child welfare, where it is less appropriate. I told the children's commissioner that I found it surprising that, given that there are only 150 local authorities, there was not a member of the inspectorate in every one. It would not have to be a long-term arrangement, I said, but there should be a presence. A member of the inspectorate should regularly accompany social workers on difficult visits, and should sit in on case conferences.
	Of course, we now live in the world of the e-mail. We all know organisations in which colleagues who are just across the corridor from each other do not knock on the door and speak, but e-mail instead. That disease exists in health and social services organisations in both the private and the public sector. I believe in the good old-fashioned presence of a person at a table, looking others in the eye and talking about a case—perhaps asking "When did you last see this family?", "When did you last discuss the child?", "When did you last talk to the child on his or her own?", or "When did you last ask whether there was a man in the house? Did you ask a neighbour whether there might be a man living in the house whom you had not known about?" That last question is a common theme in many difficult cases of this kind. In the context of the baby P case, I issue a plea for us to look very seriously at the systems.

Barry Sheerman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on that point. Social workers do a great job. Yes, we should look to see if we can improve their training and we should look at their management, but it is one of the hardest jobs in the world. If there is a tendency to take people off the front line quickly, and to promote them into the management and administration of the children's department, we must find out how to combat that by encouraging people, and by giving them time away from the front line to rest them and then bringing them back. It is a very hard job and we must respect that. We must also respect the complexity of the management task faced by the 150 directors of children services, who have very large empires to manage. A little more humility is called for.
	My hon. Friend is right about the media. For example, last week a study was published in  The Lancet which said that 5 per cent. of children in developed countries were subject to abuse, either sexual or physical. When one looked at the full reports, it became apparent that the figure of 5 per cent. was never mentioned—it was only in the press reports. The media treatment of that report gave people in this country the wrong idea. For a start, hardly any of the original research was carried out in this country.
	How many times do we hear on the BBC the words, "Research carried out by this programme"? We know what that consists of. Indeed, we had an example this weekend when it was claimed that research carried out by the BBC had found that a tiny number of MPs— 20 or 23—were unhappy with some aspects of the Speaker's performance. That was not research. It was some kid in the office who had pestered MPs over the weekend. Too often, the media, especially the BBC, do such things; the "Today" programme loves to do it. Many members will have been rung up as part of that alleged research. I know what real research is, and that is not real research.
	The amendment expresses the Opposition's concern about international tables. We do not stress the good news enough, and the trends in international mathematics and science study, or TIMSS report, shows how extraordinarily well our children have done in mathematics. The performance of the 10 to 14 age group has improved dramatically, and those on both sides of the House should welcome that. The investment in early years education, children's centres and Sure Start takes a long time to show results, and we are always in danger of making those issues a purely party political contest, with the Opposition saying that whatever the Government have done is wrong. Actually, as Chairman of the Select Committee, I see an enormous amount of good.
	However, before the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families gets too happy about that, let me say that the Committee's most recent report, which will be published in the new year, points to some concern. I totally disagree with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the former Leader of the Opposition, and his talk of the broken society and an underclass. Such language gets us nowhere. I hate the terminology and I think that it gets in the way of evaluating what is happening in our society. It is true that some people suffer from social deprivation and a longstanding lack of good employment prospects, but the situation is dynamic and people move in and out of it. There are problems and challenges, and all parties have to find ways to ensure that every child gets a chance to fulfil their real potential. Sometimes that will be through the academic route, and sometimes through an apprenticeship, training and skills route. Thank goodness, we are achieving provision, especially for 14 to 19-year-olds, that is beginning to address all the talents.
	We should also give talented people the chance to move easily between disciplines. In a sense, what was wrong with the Education Act 1944 was that people stayed on one track; if they were academic, they went to grammar school—that was their future. People who went to secondary modern school had little chance of getting requisite skills, while those who lived in areas with technical colleges went down a different route again. The apprenticeship provisions in the Bill that we will consider later this Session will ensure that 14 to 19-year-olds have access to a range of potentials.
	Finally, I want to say something about child development. One of the great things about a Select Committee is that we can take a cross-party look at very difficult subjects. We can take conventional wisdoms and the sort of street knowledge that people pass on without much research and gather evidence to see whether they are right. Most of us will have been troubled by the oft-repeated research that asserts that a child's potential is more or less decided by the level of stimulation that it receives up to the age of 22 months. If that is true, it poses a great challenge to everyone interested in the future of this country's children.
	I remind the House that 22 months is about the age of little baby P when he died. If that stimulation is so important, are we making the right decisions to ensure that the right environment is provided for all children? Of course, we have come a long way already with early-years provision. We have children's centres and Sure Start, and children aged three now get 15 hours of free nursery care. All of that is good, but you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that child care is still expensive in this country. The challenge is to provide good, stimulating environments for children as early as possible. Income levels should present no bar to that, but at present they do limit what is provided for very young children aged between nought and three. We are not doing a bad job and I do not want to castigate the Secretary of State or the Government, but we must do even better because that is the crucial age.
	I advise the House that my Committee will call evidence on levels of stimulation and the development of a child's brain. We want to establish how accurate the research to which I referred earlier and the conclusions based on it are.

Barry Sheerman: I am sorry, but I rather like the child trust funds. Earlier, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Norfolk, spoke about tobacco. Along with other hon. Members, I campaigned for many years on the smoking and tobacco issue. We were trying to change the culture associated with tobacco use and smoking, and that meant that we had to tackle advertising, education and every aspect of trying to get people to stop smoking so as to improve their health and development. The same is true with child development. We must try everything, but the Queen's Speech is absolutely right that we have to eradicate child poverty.
	For that reason, the child trust fund is one of the essential ways in which we will change children's life chances. No approach can work immediately, and the child trust funds are a long-term investment. Over five or 10 years, we shall be able to see whether they work. Many of the policies that we have embedded over the past 11 years will take a long time to evaluate. Over time, I think we shall see that child trust funds are very useful indeed.
	This will be my last point, because after criticising a previous speaker, I am going on for far too long—[Hon. Members: "Yes".] I am sorry, but normally Back Benchers and even Select Committee Chairmen have to listen the Front-Bench lot and are then restricted to 10 or 12 minutes, so I am speaking up for Back Benchers. There is no limit today, so I am taking a little longer than usual— [ Interruption. ] I shall go on for even longer now.
	I shall end on the point about culture. We are trying to change cultures and it is difficult. It has to be done in terms of tackling child poverty and in a variety of ways. Some of the things we do will not work—surprisingly enough. We are human beings so sometimes our responses to problems will not work or will not work as well as they should, but then we learn the lessons. Over the past few years, one of the things I have liked is that often when the Government recognise that something is not working too well they change it. Sure Start is a good example. Some of the Sure Start schemes were not very good when they started. I have to tell Members who like localism that it was often because the impetus was too localist—everybody came up with their own ideas and some of them did not work, so Sure Start had to be changed. As long as the Government continue to make pragmatic judgments—seeing whether things work and recognising that sometimes there are mistakes—they will have my support. On the other hand, when they do things in a bone-headed way and carry on regardless, they will not have my support or that of members of our Committee.
	Much in the Queen's Speech will give us plenty of work over the coming months. There are some interesting interventions and innovations for the qualifications framework. The Secretary of State must make sure that the framework is independent and seen to be independent so that it can speak fearlessly about the qualifications system. People will approve of that.
	The very last thing I want to say— [ Laughter. ] In that case, the penultimate—or rather pre-penultimate—thing I want to say is about apprenticeships. Only last Saturday, our Committee produced a report on apprenticeships. It was a good experiment, because the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills was producing a pre-legislative report on the draft Apprenticeships Bill at the same time. We did not collude, but we came to similar conclusions. We are positive about the apprenticeship route and about the expansion of apprenticeships. We are concerned that the targets will not be met, because as the economy is going through a slight hiccup—I shall not use the other word—and the tough times mean that the private sector will be challenged to produce enough apprenticeships, the real challenge will be to introduce them in the public sector.
	The largest employer in my constituency is the university—there are not many apprenticeships there. Health and the local authority are among the biggest employers—there not many apprenticeships there either. The sooner we can have apprenticeships in every part of our public sector system, the better. If we can achieve that, the Secretary of State and the Government will have my support.

Edward Leigh: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) for half an hour. I know that he is irritable, because the last time that I questioned in the Liaison Committee the saviour of the world, otherwise known as the Prime Minister, the hon. Gentleman shouted across the Committee Room, "Who does he think he is?" I do not think that he was referring to the Prime Minister at the time. So I will try not to irritate him, and he might agree with quite a lot of the early part my speech, because I want to talk about efficiency.
	As the parties get less ideologically divided—[Hon. Members: "Ho, ho!"] It is true, actually—efficiency becomes more and more important. We heard a bit of banter between Front Benchers earlier about their public spending plans. The truth is that, if there is a Conservative Government, they will not want to do less in health and education, but they will want to do it more efficiently. I give credit to the Government, who want to do things more efficiently as well, but whether they succeed is, of course, a matter for debate.
	Efficiency figured very large in the pre-Budget report and in the spending review. The Government claim that they want to deliver efficiency savings of a massive £35 billion. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I have often questioned whether they will actually achieve that, but I have never disagreed with the objective, which is even more important in health. We heard the Secretary of State for Health mention that he is increasing spending by what sounds like a very healthy 5 per cent., but given an ageing population and the increasing costs of health technology, unless we can achieve efficiency gains of 3 per cent. every year, that is just a standstill budget, so efficiency is absolutely central to what we are talking about.
	I want to go further than in the past, and I believe that we could achieve more efficiency. True efficiency is about achieving the same outcomes for a lot less spending. That is about the absolute, resolute and obsessive pursuit of efficiency, line by line, programme by programme. It may be a rather boring subject—it is not often at the forefront of political debate—but it is absolutely essential. Let us make no mistake: if we do not achieve massive efficiency savings, we will face armageddon in our public services.

Edward Leigh: It is true that, at certain times, people make policy decisions and have to spend more, which may indeed achieve their policy objective. Of course, I accept that, which is why I do not want to talk about policy differences in a lot of my speech. I want to try to bring the Government and, indeed, Conservative Front Benchers with me as far as possible. I do not believe that it is the duty of an Opposition—certainly, not an Opposition Back Bencher—to oppose everything and propose nothing. So I hope to make some practical suggestions about how we can improve efficiency.
	The Chancellor recently raised the bar on efficiency savings by another £5 billion, which is quite a difficult task. My call might not be strictly within the rules of poker, but I see his £5 billion and want to try to help him raise another £5 billion. Let me give some ideas, not for cutting services, but for encouraging all the major Departments to match the greatest progress made by their most efficient colleagues in five core categories of efficiency. Let us look at all the Departments and at who does things most efficiently to try to bring the rest up to that level of efficiency.
	Item 1 on that five-point agenda for efficiency is the civil service pay bill. It is true that the Government have made some progress in reducing numbers in some Departments, but not in reducing staff costs. A reduction in numbers running to tens of thousands—I agree that it has been achieved—has been accompanied by a real-terms increase in the pay bill of more than £1 billion. If all Departments matched the greatest staff reductions achieved in Whitehall, the saving to the public purse could be a massive £1.7 billion. Of course—I will mention this now—the new contract for general practitioners is an example of a Department implementing new arrangements that have increased, rather than reduced, inefficiency. Partners in GP practices are now putting in less time and their productivity has decreased; only their pay is burgeoning, having increased on average by 58 per cent. since 2003. I think that we all recognise that major mistakes were made in that contract, which we never want to see made again.
	On the subject of staff costs, are the tasks of Whitehall Departments really so different that, apparently—what the NAO tells me is extraordinary—the average civil servant in one Department can cost almost 60 per cent. more than the average employee in another? I know that Departments perform different tasks, but it seems extraordinary to me that we have such a range. If we could bring the most costly and the least efficient up to the level of the least costly and the most efficient, we could save another staggering £800 million.
	Outsourcing and consultancy form my second item. Consultancy is often discussed. It seems to me scarcely credible that any part of Government could have consultancy expenditure equivalent to even half its staff costs, let alone the 87 per cent. of staff costs spent by one Department, but that is apparent by analysing last year's accounts. The average central Government body spends five times more on consultants per employee than the private sector—a whopping £10,000 for every civil servant employed. Is that necessary? Do we need all those consultants? We have very good civil servants—they are there in the Box. Although we are not allowed even to refer to them, they are fantastic people doing a great job.
	When the NAO reported on the use of consultants, it concluded that efficiency gains of up to 30 per cent. could be achieved without reducing the underlying value of the work purchased. The NHS spent £600 million on consultants last year, when the public sector as a whole spent £2.8 billion, so the saving could be as much as £800 million a year.
	Let us take a long look at other running costs, such as the costs of accommodation, leases and IT, which provide the third item on the agenda. I offer the Government and the Opposition a further £900 million saving. I hope that my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury reads my remarks today—I am happy to help anybody, Government or Opposition, with these ideas.
	The startling variation in accommodation costs for each individual civil servant provides clear scope for improvement. When the NAO examined this matter in 2006, it found that the Department of Health—I mention that Department, because we are talking about it today—spent nearly three times as much per person as the then Department for Education and Skills. Today, the Secretaries of State for Children, Schools and Families and for Health have been sitting side by side in the Chamber, so perhaps we should ask them to explain the difference between their Departments' spending. I do not understand it.
	Perhaps the Government should consider extending their shared ownership schemes to their Departments, so that they learn lessons from each other. London property prices may not be what they were, but all of us here represent provincial constituencies, do we not? Are we sure that every civil servant currently based in the capital would not be better employed at less cost in our own communities—in Huddersfield, Gainsborough or, indeed, North Norfolk? Why are so many still based in the capital?
	The House may need to bear with me as I go through the next item on my list—comparisons of asset values. As an accountant, the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) will be interested in this subject, but the eyes of other Members present may glaze over, but it is a fantastically important subject. The Government aim to dispose of £30 billion of assets, but even though last year their main Departments got rid of approximately £1.5 billion of assets—well done—they managed to add a hefty £10 billion of assets. That so often happens in public debate: we hear the good news, but not the bad. I salute the Ministry of Defence, which achieved the highest level of disposals in Whitehall, and the Department of Health did pretty well, too. If others had marched forwards as far, another £850 million would have been captured by all of us.
	According to my rough calculations, so far we have identified savings of £4.8 billion and counting. In search of the final big push that would enable me to keep my promise to try to save the Chancellor £5 billion—no small sum—I considered those Departments that make grants. The Departments that are the subject of today's debate figure heavily among them. A recent National Audit Office report made recommendations to help grant-makers better manage the demand and flow of applications, and streamline their processes. A saving of 10 per cent. as a result of greater efficiency in grant administration across the public sector could plough £220 million back to the Treasury. I have now achieved, just in one short speech, savings of £5 billion.
	I freely accept that efficiencies are not certain; there are problems with information, challenges in delivery, and variations in circumstances, so we could undershoot, or indeed overshoot, on all those five items. However, surely that is not an argument for the abandonment of the agenda; it is an argument for adding to it. To try but fail is honourable; to fail to try would be criminal. That is why I think that efficiency should be a central part of what we try to do. My challenge to the Government is to take inspiration from Mr. Micawber. It may not be fashionable in these "Buy now, pay later" times, but the Government's accounts book should be reviewed, entry by entry, in a concerted effort to alleviate the misery of spiralling borrowing.
	In debate after debate on the work of the Public Accounts Committee, I have emphasised three broad themes of which the Government should take note in their forensic self-analysis. I start with unnecessary administration. The private sector has long focused on minimising the proportion of resources that it invests in administrative functions, so that it can focus on what delivers value for the customer. It is essential that the public sector takes that approach. That can be achieved both by cutting down the complexity of administration and by sharing the management of administrative services. We hear a great deal about that problem in the NHS. Every time that we talk to our doctors and consultants, and people whom we know in the NHS, they harp on at us about the cost of administration—a vital point. We should listen to them all the time.
	My second theme is commercial skills and astuteness. The role of the Government is changing from one in which they delivered most public services themselves to one in which they manage other organisations that deliver services on their behalf. No matter who wins the next general election, the process will go on and on. The Government will withdraw more and more from the front line and will use other people to manage their services. Government will become ever more commercial.
	In those circumstances, the delivery of services is underpinned by commercial arrangements, so the Government need to improve their ability to manage contracts. We have to employ the best people and pay them the right price. We should bring them in from the City and the merchant banks to work for us. When it comes to private finance initiatives, new contracts or hospital running costs, we have to get the best people working for us and pay them the best price, which pays in the long run.
	Frankly, the public sector still lacks the commercial nous to derive maximum benefits from its suppliers. Take one well-known example in the education field. The interest of celebrity chefs in school dinners has helped to draw attention to one, small, specific area of procurement. We looked at the issue and showed that there was scope to realise over £200 million of efficiency savings in food procurement in just one year by 2010-11. More than half of those savings could be achieved in schools and hospitals without affecting quality. Ultimately, actions such as joint purchasing could help to avoid situations such as those that we found at the time of our investigations. For instance, we found that one public body pays 32p and another £1.10 for the same loaf of bread.
	I come to my final theme, making better use of resources. The Government do not always manage the vast array of resources in their control, including office buildings, service delivery and agents, as efficiently as they should. Earlier this year, the National Audit Office published a report on managing financial resources. It found that since 2003 Departments have indeed improved their management of finances, but, incredibly, that 40 per cent. of them invariably provided decision makers with a full analysis of the financial implications of policy proposals. It is amazing that in only 40 per cent. of cases in which Ministers make difficult policy decisions they were told about the financial implications of those decisions. The message must be driven home that the management of financial resources is the responsibility of everyone in the Department, from the Secretary of State down, and not just the central finance team.
	The Government need to know what is being spent, where and on what, and I hope that there is a central emphasis on everything that Ministers and their top civil servants do. They need to know whether one Department pays more for the same service than another, and they must embrace, not avoid, comparisons of cost and performance across the public sector. Departments must benchmark all the time with other Departments, and they must look at what is going on abroad. They must always seek to do the most efficient thing, and pay people to work for the public sector and Ministers to get the best results.
	All those disciplines should apply to the Government's proposed programme. The aim of government is not to legislate at any cost—the Government are clearly not doing so, as we are not overloaded with legislation, on which I congratulate them—but when the costs and benefits are totted up, how many of the proposed Bills would help the fastidious Mr. Micawber to obtain happiness by balancing his affairs? We should look at all those Bills and ask how they will achieve happiness by balancing our financial affairs.
	If the House will allow me, I shall propose one final test to be applied to all the Government's proposed legislation. It is simple: does the proposal reduce the overall burden on the public purse, and is it efficient? That legislative impact assessment should be policed, perhaps by the House, with more rigour than the Government have put into their own regulatory impact assessments. If the answer to the question is yes, the Bill should be allowed to proceed to further debate. If the answer is no, it should be allowed to go forward only if accompanied by an equal saving elsewhere. Now is not the time for either the cost or the burden of government to grow, because we simply cannot afford it. I urge all public bodies to keep at the forefront of their thoughts the fact that taxpayers and all those who use public services rely on them to get this right. Given the storm-tossed state of the public finances, the success or failure of programmes to achieve true efficiency in the public services will have a major impact on all our lives.
	If the House will forgive me, before I conclude may I make one or two policy points? In everything that I have said so far, I have spoken as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I hope that what I have said is not politically sensitive and that Members on both sides of the House agree with it. However, from my own personal perspective as a Back Bencher, may I make one or two points? This is where I fear that I may lose Government Members, but the debate offers an opportunity to express one's point of view, so why should I not do so?
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister, without telling me in advance—fair enough; all is fair in the House—attacked me on the Floor of the House, so I could not pop up and put the record straight. May I now make clear my point of view that the Government have made a major error in seeking to solve our economic problems by cutting VAT at a time at which prices in the shops are falling through the floor? The point that I made, not as Chairman of the PAC but from my own personal perspective, was that the best way to help the poor is by raising tax thresholds to get people out of paying tax altogether and to attack the poverty and unemployment trap.

Edward Leigh: I am not saying that the system is exactly comparable, and I know that many parents in France go to private schools because they want their children to have a Catholic education—that may be the same here. I am not arguing for a sudden revolution, but a gradual change.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, the shadow Secretary of State, agrees with that. He has been very innovative. He has looked at what is happening in Sweden, and he will come up with ideas to make it easier for people to set up private schools. All I am asking is why it is considered to be so wrong and reactionary to break down the rigid divide between the state and the private sector in education. I have never understood that, and if we can find ways of being innovative and of helping people to break down that divide, we should. If I cannot take the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) with me on that, can I at least take him this far—please do not go on with this process of trying to micro-manage our schools on the curriculum? The people involved are professionals and they know what is best. Rely on parent power: if head teachers do not deliver what people want locally, people will not want to send their children to those schools.
	I say the same thing about health, and again, I know that I will lose people on this issue. Why do we have a rigid divide between the public and private sector in health? My family and I rely completely on the national health service. I have no private health insurance, but if a retired person, after paying tax all their life, wants private health insurance, I do not see why they should not be given tax relief on it. The last Conservative Government did that, and it is simply fair. If people are denied a particular medication because it is too expensive and they want to top up the cost from their own resources, why should they not be allowed to do so?
	As with education, I believe that we should not try to micro-manage the national health service. We should rely on professionals and on their good judgment. Increasingly, we should step back and set budgets—the Government are doing that through foundation hospitals—and proceed apace, relying on the professionals to run hospitals in the way they think best. However, I will not take the House with me on many of those things.

Fraser Kemp: I have considerable sympathy with the earlier remarks that the hon. Gentleman made in his capacity as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. However, I am slightly confused about one thing. The earlier part of his speech was about the Secretary of the State and others in Departments ensuring that we get cost effectiveness and efficiency in public services, which is right. Yet, in the second part of his speech, he has argued that the Government should not micro-manage education and health. Surely, there is an inherent contradiction between the two: if we are going to get real value for money, it has to be led from the centre, and it follows that we cannot allow complete independence and freedom from Government control of health and education.

Edward Leigh: I do not think that that follows. Let us remember that much of what I said was, for instance, about the efficient use of asset management and the roll-out of computer systems. What is increasingly happening in relation to health, for instance, is that the Government say to hospitals, "We will pay you through the primary care trust so much per hip and then you can get on with it. If you do it efficiently and learn good practice, you can keep more of your money." I pay tribute to the Government on that.
	There is not a dichotomy between me and the hon. Gentleman on this. A grant-making body can pay so much per pupil in schools, and we can say that we will pay so much for a secondary or primary school pupil if a child needs a statement or if a body is prepared to give him a statement. I know a lot about that from my personal experience. After the school has received the money per child, it is free to manage that child in the way that it thinks is best. The same also applies to foundation hospitals. Once the money has been dispersed per hip, per cancer treatment, or however it is done, real scope is given to the professionals to run the budget in the most efficient way.

Edward Leigh: That may be a good point. Perhaps the principle behind foundation hospitals is right, but we have not implemented it in the right way. The Minister has heard the hon. Lady's intervention, so perhaps we will learn from that practical experience.
	Whatever the House might think about those ideological differences, I hope that we all agree that we have to be much more commercially astute in the way in which we operate our public services. Whatever side of the argument we support, we must ensure that we are committed to our public services and that we make them as commercially efficient as the private sector. There is no reason why that should not be done and if we do so, we will achieve much more for our constituents.

Sharon Hodgson: I am delighted to be able to speak in the debate on education and health in response to the Gracious Speech. I spoke in the debate on the same subject last year and much has happened since. I am not only a member of the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families, but parliamentary private secretary to the public health Minister. I will not be able to talk in detail on health matters because tradition dictates that my new role prevents me from expressing my strong support for steps to remove point of sale displays for tobacco products. It also prevents me from welcoming steps to help cut the cost of having cancer through making prescriptions free for cancer patients. It most certainly means that I am not in a position to say how welcome it is that the Department of Health has shown a clear commitment to the health of our children by putting forward joint funding for pilots of extended and universal free school meals. As I have always said, I came here to break the mould.
	Health issues are pertinent to my constituency. For example, in the Sunderland metropolitan area, life expectancy is 18 months below the national average and death rates from smoking, heart disease, strokes and cancer are all above the national average. I am enjoying my new role, but I want to make it clear that I am acutely aware of the priorities for health care in my patch and that although my public voice on such matters may be diminished—

Sharon Hodgson: I shall follow your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for your patience.
	My focus today will be on education. Last year, I called for pilot schemes on universal free school meals, and in September they were announced. I also called for better provision for children with dyslexia, and I am pleased to say that we are well on the way to securing that, too. It was an honour to play my part in highlighting the need to improve provision, not just for children with dyslexia, but for all children with special educational needs. I had a privileged opportunity to steer successfully my Special Educational Needs (Information) Bill through the House, and I am grateful for the help and support that I received from Members on both sides of the House. The Special Educational Needs (Information) Act 2008 should lead to improved information on the types of needs these children have, and it is my fervent hope that this improved information will raise outcomes in years to come. I cannot let this chance go by without reminding Ministers of the need to spell out how the new powers in the Act will be implemented.
	I spend so much time talking to charities and stakeholders with an interest in SEN, but a number of interests that still need attention have come to the fore. I hope that the education and skills Bill can be a vehicle for addressing some of those problems. Last year, I focused on two issues in depth and I achieved some success, so this year I shall cover more matters, although perhaps in less detail, and hope for a similar outcome. Recent answers to written parliamentary questions have said that the Government are considering the specific remit of Ofsted's report into SEN in our schools. The sooner we know what that remit will be, the better.
	It is good to see that an interim report has been published today by Brian Lamb as part of his ongoing review of parental confidence in the statementing process. As a parent of a child with a statement of SEN, I know all too well the feelings of "fighting" or "battling" the system that this report recognises. Better information for parents, better outcomes for children and a place in mainstream policy for SEN and disability issues are all vital. I know for a fact that the report is not falling on deaf ears as far as the Secretary of State is concerned.
	There is a consensus among the charitable sector that we need to define types of need more clearly when we record SEN, so let us hope that the Ofsted report will examine in detail whether the current categories of recording need are efficient. There is consensus, too, that parents deserve better information about SEN provision, so let us hope that Ofsted will consider the need to empower parents to make well-informed decisions. We also know that there are similarities in the difficulties that children with medical conditions such as epilepsy or diabetes face in our schools, and it may be a smart move to ask inspectors to examine how a joined-up approach to delivering support to those whose unique physical or mental abilities create barriers to learning could be achieved.
	I realise that I am digressing somewhat from the substance of the proposed education Bill, and I wish to return more tightly to it, while keeping a focus on SEN issues. It is extremely welcome to see that the Bill will provide teachers with the right to request time for training. Not only does that reflect the Government's wider focus on upskilling our work force, but it allows scope for teachers to develop specialist skills in support of those with SEN. Last year, the Government announced £18 million of funding for a masters qualification in teaching and learning. If they are to match their words with action, it is imperative that the qualification is required to contain work on supporting pupils with dyslexia and other SEN. I know that is something that Dyslexia Action is keen to secure, and it has my full support in doing so.
	We must also examine measures to improve the skills of those who work with our children without requiring huge time commitments from teachers over and above their already heavy work load. When the Government publish the children's workforce strategy, I hope that they will have considered the possibility of using rights for teachers to request training to deliver further training on SEN. I am considering a campaign calling for one in five INSET days—in-service training days—to be given over to our SEN children, who, as some hon. Members may know, make up one in five of our school population. I understand that there are potential barriers to making that a reality, but I cannot help thinking that "One in five for one in five" is a catchy campaign slogan.
	Why not give teachers the right to undertake training in different special educational needs, when they are already required to teach pupils with such needs in schools every day? In the case of deaf children, there are things that teachers could learn in a matter of hours that would benefit children for a lifetime. Awareness of acoustics and the aural environment can make an immediate difference. I will continue to work with the National Deaf Children's Society on the proposal. I hope not only that it will benefit deaf children, but that it can be adapted to help a range of children with special educational needs.

Sharon Hodgson: I do not have great expertise in the subject, but I take the hon. Gentleman's word that what he describes is the case and urge the Government to look into that, too.
	In addition, there will be measures to review school transport for those in post-16 education. There is already a feeling that a wider review of school transport is needed across all age ranges to plug holes in budgets through which money can often leak—I am thinking of the use of taxis, for example. The recent outrage felt by the public at the case of baby P was shared by all hon. Members. It is a cliché to say that lessons must be learned following such tragedies, but I want to make a couple of points about that. It has already been noted that we cannot allow such cases to lead to all child care workers being tarred with the same brush, but at the same time we cannot miss the opportunity to lift the level of professionalism among child care services. Whatever the whys and wherefores of today's UNCIEF report, we are clearly lagging behind much of Europe. That cannot be allowed to continue. The report notes that provision here is hampered by a lack of well-trained staff.
	I mentioned in the House recently that the Danish system uses pedagogues as professionally trained workers who form an extra layer in the protection and development of vulnerable children. It is so often the case that those of us in the House with a progressive viewpoint hold up the Scandinavian system as an example in the hope that it can be mirrored here. I was pleased when the Secretary of State said that there were already plans to look at trials of such workers, because such trials could reveal very interesting results. There need not be a presumption that we must put more children into care, but we should strive to ensure that the level of care that those already in the care system receive is a world class.
	Another Bill in the Gracious Speech that will put us on a stronger footing for the future is the welfare reform Bill. Those proposals caused a bulge in my postbag when they were first announced. Some constituents were worried that their benefits would be withdrawn, but the majority were happy at the prospect of ending a something-for-nothing culture. We all know the value of work, and it is not just about bringing home a wage; it offers much more. It is important for children to grow up with work as the norm, for adults to feel as though they are contributing to the community around them, and for the country to make the most of all its talents. That might sound idealistic, but I believe that that is the kind of future that we need to aspire to, and more so now, in these times of difficulty, than ever before. We need to get parents into work, to set an example to their children. We need to support those parents in equipping their children to take on a job that comes with rights, including the right to a decent living wage, the right to equal pay and conditions, the right to flexible working, the right to gain further skills and, above all, the most important right, which will now be enshrined in law: the right not to live in poverty any more.

Fraser Kemp: My hon. Friend mentioned the right to training. Soon, millions of workers in Britain who did not fail themselves but who were failed by the education system in the p generations will have the opportunity to demand and expect extra training. Does she agree that it is essential that education does not stop at 18 or 21, and that the millions of people out there who did not have the benefits of the system will now be able to enjoy the benefits of training? That is one of the key points in the Bill.

Lee Scott: I should like to start by making it clear that I pay tribute to members of the NHS—doctors, nurses and any other staff working in the service—and that none of my words imply any impact on them or criticism of them. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will see what I am alluding to. I particularly want to pay tribute to John Goulston, the chief executive of Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust, for the work that he is doing in trying to turn the trust round, following its previous abysmal administration, about which I shall say more in a moment.
	First, I want to talk about the amount being paid out in claims for negligence in the NHS. In my own trust, in the past four years, £33,534,380 has been paid out. That represents 179 claims. There are still 180 claims outstanding, so the final amount could be tens of millions of pounds more. My distress is compounded when I think that across London, £250 million has been paid out in the past three years. I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me to discuss the problem, and for his awareness of how to address it.
	I shall refer to two cases, which I will simply call A and B, in order to leave the people anonymous. One lady went for a kneecap replacement, but it is was put in the wrong way round, as she realised when she was unable to walk. Not only did she receive compensation, but the operation—with all its associated costs—had to be redone. More tragically, case B concerns a lady in perfect health who went into hospital to have a baby, but something went wrong and she was left paralysed, brain-damaged and in a very distressing state—with multi-payouts of moneys following on. My point is not to apportion blame, but to say that we must look more deeply into how such events are happening and why. Perhaps retraining through the General Medical Council is necessary, but we must stop this happening in the future. For example, my own area's NHS trust has a deficit of some £90 million—and the vast bulk of it is due to cases such as those two.
	The General Medical Council investigates the doctors involved in such cases. The problem is that that is not happening quickly enough: many of these cases drag on and on for years, yet while they are being investigated the doctors continue to operate on patients. I hope that the Secretary of State agrees—in fact, I know from the words he kindly exchanged with me the other day that he does—that patients have the right to know if a doctor who is operating on them is being investigated as a result of a serious complaint connected with another case. I hope that some measures in the Queen's Speech will provide some assistance with such problems.
	I mentioned earlier the previous administration of my area's trust, which brings me to another point that I have previously raised with Ministers and the Secretary of State. A former chief executive—in this case I will provide the name: Mark Reece, whom I have named here before—left the trust in a bad position, with vast debts, yet received quite a sum of money as a payoff, and, indeed, for his pension. Once such payments have been made by the NHS, we must ensure that the people concerned cannot be re-employed as consultants elsewhere in the country and earn even more money from the NHS. That is simply rewarding failure, and it has to be stopped. I say that because this gentleman—together with his partner, a former chief executive of Maidstone and West Kent NHS Trust, who also had a payoff—has indeed formed a consultancy with the hope of advising the NHS on how to run trusts up and down the country. I would say that those two people are not the right ones to be advising the NHS on anything anywhere in our country.
	Together with my colleague the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), I recently visited the maternity wing of the Queen's hospital, Romford, and I can only pay tribute to the work being done there. I say this in a completely non-political way, but I think that the Government have a facility there that they have done proud, as the services that constituents receive there are first class. But—I am sorry that there has to be a but—it can take up to one and a half hours for my constituents in Ilford, North to get there by two bus journeys. Today I received a complaint from a constituent about how long it can take to get there. Although that is a great facility, we must also enhance and improve the King George hospital, which also services my constituency, to ensure that my constituents can receive services as close to their own doorsteps as possible.
	We heard earlier from the Secretary of State about the services of polyclinics, and I believe that the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) paid tribute to one that opened recently in his constituency. One is opening in my neighbouring constituency, and I welcome anything that enhances services to patients. However, it will not help my constituents, so I very much hope that all GP services are protected, with no closures whatever, so that people can get the service they deserve as close as humanly possible to their own doorsteps.

Lee Scott: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. Of course, there is a problem attached to polyclinics. I have said openly that although I am not against them, I do not want services in any constituency diminished because of them. People need contact with their own doctor, who knows them, has dealt with them for a number of years and can give them the services that they need and deserve.
	On the subject of education, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) referred to special educational needs, and I want to concentrate on one aspect of that: the teaching of our teachers. In a recent report by the National Autistic Society, a large number of teachers said that they were ill prepared to understand the needs of autistic children. Training is vital. I hope that that will be covered in the proposed Bills.
	I recognise that the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, who was at a meeting that I attended not so long ago, has said that the needs of the most vulnerable children in our society will be addressed, and I believe that he honestly wants to do that. However, relief teachers come into schools and do not know the pupils. I want a system the same as the one used in hospitals, whereby a new team that relieves a shift is given the notes of the patients whom it is servicing. In a recent case, a relief teacher took away from the child of one of my constituents the bar of chocolate that was needed because the child suffered from diabetes; the chocolate was medication. The child had a bottle of Lucozade and a bar of chocolate, and was not being naughty or eating in class. Those things were necessary because of the child's medical condition, but the relief teacher was not aware of that. Again, that is a matter of training, but also a matter of information being passed on by schools to relief teachers.
	The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that Back Benchers could not speak for as long as Front-Bench spokesmen, and then went on to speak for longer than the Front Benchers. I do not intend to do that, but I do want to put across my final few points.
	I am fortunate. The education system in the London borough of Redbridge is first class. Many people try to get into our schools and our education system, and I commend the borough for that. However, I want better provision of education for special needs children. We have two good schools, in Hatton and Little Heath, which are doing a fantastic job. I want to ensure that they get the resources that they need. I apologise—possibly to my Front Bench—for what I am about to say, but this is me saying it; I am not saying it on behalf of my party. I want resources ring-fenced for special needs children so that there is not a postcode lottery. We know about the burdens on local authorities, whatever the political persuasion of those running that authority, and there is a finite amount of money. However, I want the right sums of money to be put into the education of special needs children, and I want to ensure that they get it—and that will be possible only if we have ring-fenced funding. I ask the Secretary of State to consider that. As I said, it is my personal view.
	If we do not help the most vulnerable children in our society, we should hang our heads in shame. We were all elected to this House to do that job and ensure that we protect those individuals and young people. I, for one, will do everything in my power to make sure that it is done.

Siobhain McDonagh: I want to focus on the proposed Bill to give the NHS a constitution. Unlike the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I think that our public services need more public involvement rather than less, and on the basis of my constituency experience, I am sceptical about the suggestion that we should leave professionals to their own devices. I feel that that has led to a slightly unrepresentative NHS that sometimes makes decisions in its own favour as an institution rather than considering the needs of individuals.
	In 1996, during the last days of the last Conservative Government, the authorities at St. Helier hospital, which serves half my constituency, made a private, closed decision that the hospital should close and move further into Surrey, further away from those with the greatest health needs living in my constituency. A process was set in motion by NHS officers, who concluded that the hospital should be moved to Belmont, in the Surrey suburbs—one of the areas with the highest incomes and the lowest health needs and, indeed, an area that did not want a big hospital.
	How could such a decision be made? I wonder whether it was anything to do with the fact that not one of the 18 board members of Merton and Sutton primary care trust comes from, or lives in, my constituency. They all live in much more affluent areas, and know my area less well. What is more, in an area that is hugely ethnically diverse, all but one of the board members are white. I believe that such boards are set up as they are because people choose other people in their own image and likeness. Potential board members are judged on the basis of whether they are members of other quango boards and whether they have similar experience. The difficult people who tend to challenge the status quo are not included in the selection process.
	The NHS later set up a public consultation on where the hospital should go. To no one's surprise, St. Helier was the favourite choice and Belmont the least favourite, but the NHS wanted to stick to its decision. At that point, all the local boards rowed in behind the official NHS view that the hospital should move further into Surrey, despite the opposition of thousands of residents. Depending on whether or not one is charitable, one can believe either that the health service appointed consultants to re-examine the evidence or that it appointed them to manipulate the consultation results in order to suggest that people had voted for Belmont when they clearly had not. Because most people had answered the question "Would you like a hospital near to where you live?" in the affirmative, it was suggested that that constituted evidence that Belmont was near to where they lived, and that that justified the move. Even people living in the Belmont area did not want the hospital there. A staggering number of people wrote to me saying "We do not want our nice residential area to be bulldozed to pieces, we do not want ambulances with blue flashing lights, and we do not want more bus services." No one wanted Belmont, except, of course, the NHS.
	Over the years, we had more and more arguments about the issue. Members who have been involved in arguments about hospital reconfigurations, or in any similar campaigns, will know how daunting it is to be faced with a wall of experts and professionals, given the limited resources possessed by many of our communities and, in many instances, by Members of Parliament. My local residents, however, had one thing in their favour. In 2004, the London borough of Merton had a Labour council, which, after being consulted by residents, used its powers to have the decision to close the hospital called in to the Secretary of State. The decision was reconsidered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) and subsequently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt): they had listened to the people.
	Late in 2005 the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West, instructed the NHS to rebuild the hospital at St. Helier. She agreed with residents that it was better for it to be there, because that was most likely to reduce health inequalities. After all, the life expectancy of people in my constituency is 10 years shorter than that of those living in the Belmont area.
	One would have thought that that was the end of the matter, because the Secretary of State had made her decision. However, the local NHS did not give up that easily. There is nobody from our area on its boards, and there is no constitution to say this was unreasonable, so although Ministers told it to build a hospital at St. Helier and to stop working on Belmont, it continued to make progress with its initial plans. It held meetings with Transport for London where it made it clear that Belmont was still the favoured option. It then announced that—lo and behold—planning issues meant that the hospital simply could not be built at St. Helier. It asked the Secretary of State to reverse the Government's decision, and to build the hospital in leafy Belmont as it had originally hoped would happen.
	Again, local residents were up in arms. After all this time, why would the local NHS not listen to us? How could it be that there was nobody in the NHS establishment who would represent us? The Government had represented us; the local council had represented us; even the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, had supported us. He told the local NHS, "Look, I'm in charge of London's planning policy, and St. Helier is the right place to have this hospital." The local NHS just would not listen to us, however, so we campaigned, fought and lobbied, and eventually, after years and years, it looks like we have won.
	I have to say that I think we now have an excellent deal. Not only has St. Helier been saved, but it is going to be rebuilt and refurbished. There will be new wards with single rooms, to cut down on infections and improve patient privacy, a new local care centre, and a new 24/7 GP service. There will also be four care centres, including one at the Wilson, the hospital the Tories closed down in the early 1990s. These care centres will have diagnostics and treatments, and dentists and GPs open when people want them. Moreover, the Wilson is not just getting a care centre. It will reopen as a hospital, performing minor operations, and with more than 50 intermediate care beds for people recuperating from operations or needing care they cannot get at home.
	My constituents have seen a stark contrast between how their views are treated by local and national Government on the one hand and by the NHS on the other. That is because democratically elected organisations are far more likely to represent the views of those who are least able to express their own views. Sometimes it has seemed as if our achievements were in spite of, rather than because of, the NHS. As I reflect on our 11 years in power, I think it would have been much better if there had been a constitution for our NHS earlier, and in particular a constitution that forced the local NHS to listen to patients and staff, and which obliged it to be representative of the communities in which it is situated.
	Why, after all these years, have we not had even one local person on one of our NHS boards? Why, too, should the local NHS professional bodies be packed with people who have little connection with my constituency? I am particularly concerned about the composition of my primary care trust's professional executive committee. It is dominated by a practice far away from Mitcham and Morden. The medical committee comprises eight clinicians. The last GP from Mitcham to serve on this board was taken off it more than a year ago. Now all its members are white, even though the majority of the GPs in the PCT are not, and they represent an area that has the best health in the PCT area, rather than the worst. Six of the eight PEC members are from the same commissioning group, the Nelson, even though this group covers possibly the most affluent neighbourhood in the PCT. I should have thought that allowing a single commissioning group to dominate such an important committee was extremely dangerous. Indeed, I have received complaints that this very powerful practice-based commissioning group is at an advantage. It certainly appears to have a disproportionate influence.
	I am especially anxious because this extremely unrepresentative committee is taking decisions about health care in my area. Both locally and nationally, we have been told to demonstrate that there is equal access to health services. Even the Conservatives who run Merton council say that bridging the gap between my constituency in the east and the far more affluent west of the borough is the top priority. As I have said, the Government have instructed the local NHS to take more account of health inequalities, but I am not convinced that the PCT can eradicate inequality in the local NHS, because it is not representative of either the local NHS or local people.
	I hope that a new constitution will offer us an opportunity to achieve that. I want the NHS to listen to local people and to come from local people. I want it to reflect the people whom it serves and the people who work in it. I support the Government's plan to introduce a new constitution for the NHS, but I want it to ensure that local residents are represented. I want my local NHS to reflect the area that it serves. Over the last four years, foundation hospitals have shown that communities want to be involved in their NHS as a whole, not as a particular interest group or with a particular agenda. The 108 foundation hospitals have more than 1 million members, with turnouts in elections that often exceed local election numbers. If we can get far more people involved and having their say in an institution that unites this country, we will have a much better chance of having a service that reflects the needs and demands of local residents.

John Hemming: I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is back in his place, because, as hon. Members will not be surprised to hear, I intend to talk about the child protection system. For some years, I have been concerned that the system makes the wrong decisions, including both false positives, when it intervenes when it should not, and false negatives, when it fails to intervene when it should.
	For some time, I have been trying to identify how many serious case reviews have taken place following the death of a child, because that would provide a threshold from which we could track trends. The Department has been singularly unhelpful. In fact, when I gave up trying to get information out of it and went to all the local children's services authorities, the Department kindly instructed them not to give me their lists of serious case reviews. I am pleased to say, however, that the Chairman of the Select Committee has agreed that the Committee will work to try to find out that information. Ofsted has given us all the figures—including the 210 figure from yesterday—but it has only been tracking the figures from 1 April 2007. The serious case review process has been going on for some time, but it was strongly emphasised by the Laming report. It is a good process and it gives us a mechanism for tracking what is going on.
	We should not focus only on one case: we must look at the system and where it is going wrong. We also have to consider the wider aspects, such as the Laming review. Lord Laming is obviously the ideal person to review the extent to which his proposals have been implemented, but he is not the ideal person to review to what extent other proposals should be implemented. The Government have gradually moved towards the idea, which I proposed, that we need to look at the whole system of public family law. That starts with the initial references, moves on to the assessment processes and the integrated children's system, and—if there is a reference—it moves into the family courts, and we have not yet decided to look at how those work. I am still hoping that in January the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe will agree to investigate the family division of the High Court. I shall go into some of the reasons why the family division is part of the problem.
	In the initial process, the local authorities initiate proceedings. They often start with child protection conferences, which are often organised to prevent extended family members from attending. I had such a case today. One of my members of staff agreed to go to a child protection conference in Birmingham with a constituent—I do not know what has happened because I have been in the Chamber—and the time was changed at the last minute. We could say, "Well, that happens sometimes", except that it happened previously with another constituent. We arranged to accompany that constituent to the child protection conference and act as an advocate, but the authority—this was Solihull rather than Birmingham—changed the time of the conference. We were told, "You've missed it, it's already happened." That is an abuse of process and it should not be tolerated. In a sense, though, it is a symptom of the attempt to drive out the extended family.
	We need to be straight about the fact that such things do not always happen. I work with many social workers, and there was a conference in Stafford—also attended, not surprisingly, by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney)—arranged by Rachel Bramble that looked at why things are going wrong in social work. The fact that people are being driven out of the profession is evidenced by all the vacancies that exist, but why do people not want to work in the sector?
	The existing process is almost designed to exclude people, but then cases go into a court environment that is frightening and bewildering for people who have never been there before. Indeed, it has taken me some time to understand the processes involved. The House will be aware that I co-ordinate the Justice for Families campaign, and we are approached by people from across the country who are facing care proceedings. We refer matters to local constituency MPs, try to find volunteer McKenzie friends and so on, because there are great difficulties with the legal processes in the courts.
	In an earlier intervention, I said that the single-expert system meant that people could not get a second opinion without the judge's permission. Judges tend to refuse that permission, and they pride themselves on the efficiency of the system under which an expert is appointed jointly by the local authority and the parents involved. The problem is that the system is a machine for miscarriages of justice. A number of social workers have complained to me, and last year one explained how he used to collude with parents' solicitors to ensure that the parents would lose their case. That is a criminal offence, and it is very difficult for me to take the matter further, as that would mean the social worker involved having to give evidence against himself.
	A case in Oldham would serve well for a review of the single-expert system. The parents were refused a second opinion in both the county court and the Court of Appeal. When they applied again to the Court of Appeal, they were told that they could have a second opinion, which confirmed that the baby had not and could not have been hurt by them. Not only were the parents not guilty; they were provably innocent.
	In one sense, the failure to allow a second opinion is based on practice on the continent, where the parties involved have their own experts as well as the one appointed by the court. The idea is that the court-appointed expert can make a decision about the truth of the other expert evidence. In this country, what happens with experts' meetings is a move in that direction.
	I see a great many cases, of which the Webster case is a good example. Once initiated, a case like that will trundle through the system. Everything happens and the children are adopted, but then all of a sudden it becomes apparent that once again the court has got it wrong. Such problems are driven by the single-expert system.
	I proposed an amendment to the Children and Young Persons Bill that would have enabled people to get expert evidence. At present, when the court has gathered all the expert evidence, it is illegal for a parent's solicitor to telephone a doctor and ask whether he or she knows anything about a case. That would be a contempt of court, and it is another example of how the single-expert system is a machine for generating miscarriages of justice. Given that some solicitors also conspire against parents in such cases, the House will see that the situation can be very difficult.
	I received a letter from the eastern region of the Legal Services Commission, dated 31 October 2008 that refers to legal aid for a case involving a Mrs. M. It states that
	"funding will continue on the basis that Mrs. M should accept that her case is being publicly funded, and that contesting Interim Care Orders, where there is no change of circumstances, is not an issue on which she would expect to be legally represented."
	Basically, that means that Mrs. M is allowed non-means-tested funding as long as she does not say no to the interim care order. In other words, she can have a solicitor at the hearing, but she has to agree to the order. That is not the way towards a proper judicial process, and, as I have said, such an approach drives everything else. The Department for Children, Schools and Families has done some good statistical work. Earlier this year, it analysed about 400 cases, and table A2.42 of its report shows what a low proportion of cases are chucked out of court.
	There is a problem with the single-expert system. Sometimes, people cannot get legal aid when they want to contest a case; they simply have to accept it and work with it. We need to look at the criteria used to determine when a child is taken into care. The phrase in the section 31 threshold is "risk of significant harm", but that could mean many different things. Obviously, everyone accepts that baby P and Kyra Ishaq should have been in care, and there are many similar situations, but should we put a 16-year-old in care because his parents have split up and he will not talk to one of them? I do not think so, but some judge does.
	Domestic violence is a difficult area, and it is challenging for kids. If parents split up and do not see each other because Mum was a victim of domestic violence, should we still be trying to take her children off her? I do not think so. We learn from women's refuges that women are so frightened of losing their children that they do not actually report domestic violence. Margaret Halliday of the Salisbury women's refuge will provide that information, and I, too, can provide lots of evidence.
	Another criterion is secure care for welfare reasons. In some of those cases, children should not be in secure care. There is no evidence that it does anything for them, and they are, in effect, suffering imprisonment without having committed an offence—much like the boy who will not talk to his mum. Not co-operating with professionals is another reason that does not seem sensible. The mere fact that somebody does not immediately snap to and do exactly what they are told should not be good cause to remove their children and have those children adopted. That does not mean that if the children are missing medical attention because the parents never take medical attention seriously, there is not a grave issue. Another reason is "comments eroding children's self-esteem"; so if the parent tells the kids they are stupid, the children need to be taken into care. I do not think so. Then there is missing school. Obviously kids should be going to school, but we have a one-trick pony—a system whereby at a certain point the child is taken into care. We need much better scrutiny of the operation of the section 31 threshold.
	There are important reasons why the system correlates with the false negative environment. It is in part caused by the way the integrated children's system pressurises practitioners into making an early decision about the truth of the case and not changing it thereafter. That is the basis of an article that I have written with Sue White, who is professor of social work at Lancaster university, and Allan Norman, who is a social worker and lawyer based in Birmingham, where he runs his own practice—Celtic Knot. The article has been published on the  Community Care and  Family Law websites and in  The Birmingham Post, and I have also sent a copy to the Minister, so there is no sense in my re-reading what is available on the internet.
	Haringey, like many authorities, has a target, for the number of children in care which is kept for budgetary purposes. The target for March 2007 was 365, and the target for March 2008 was 352. In part, the objective of reducing numbers in care is laudable. That is also true of trying to reduce the weekly costs, which have run at higher than £800 per child per week. On 3 October 2006 it was noted that the deficit forecast for Haringey council was £4.6 million, which included a forecast overspend for children's services of £2.3 million, including a figure of £500,000 for looked-after children. The executive member for finance said, "I will be working closely with the services concerned, and I will be looking to them to identify ways to bring the budget back on target." It was recognised at that time that the placements budget was running at 381 children and was very tight, and the figure had crept up to 392 by November 2006.
	By 31 March 2007, the financial situation had improved, although there was still an overspend of £500,000 on legal fees. The number of children in care had reduced and a new target was set of 352. At the end of the 2007-08 financial year, however, the number of children in care had increased back up to 373, which was 21 more than budget. It appears that controls on the number of care proceedings were tightened up in November 2006 with the 12-month rolling number from November 2006 going below 40 for the first time they were released in August 2007. The number then went back up above 50, its historical level in recent years. Sadly, baby P died in August 2007.
	Given the inherent constraints on the number of children in care, if children are put into care who should not be in care—one of my examples was from Haringey—it pushes resources in the wrong direction, so we have difficulties with that. That is a bit of a run through; I could go on for a long time about other aspects, but two other Members want to speak, and if I can do another five minutes that would be quite reasonable.  [ Interruption. ] They are both smiling.
	I want to raise mental capacity and the RP case. It is not sub judice, simply because it has been through all the domestic courts and has got to the first stage in the European Court of Human Rights. That case is absolutely appalling in my view. An expert was appointed who said, "Mum's too stupid to instruct a solicitor and therefore isn't allowed to operate her own proceedings." The Official Solicitor was brought in and said, "Sorry, we're going to concede this case. That's it. You've had it." So there was no trial. There was a 10-minute hearing, at which everything said by the local authority was accepted as gospel, and that was it, except for the fact that we have taken it up and said that audi alteram partem—hearing the other side—is a key part of a trial process. Interestingly, although the expert at the time said, "Mum didn't have the capacity to instruct a solicitor," another expert has said more recently, "Well, she's obviously got the capacity to instruct a solicitor." In fact, she has done quite well at presenting her own case in the Court of Appeal. I have the transcripts of those hearings if anyone wants to read them, and the case is now in the European Court.
	Good news from my point of view is that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is showing some interest in mental capacity and what is happening in the Official Solicitor's office. We have about 180 cases a year where parents are basically excluded from judicial proceedings. They have no locus—something that is not allowed in criminal proceedings, which people have been able to contest since a case in the 1800s. In family court proceedings, it is seen as perfectly acceptable to put parents in a situation where they cannot contest the proceedings.
	I have another case, which I call the HP case, in which a lady who does not speak English was given an IQ test in English, did rather badly—whoops—and contacted the Official Solicitor. We went to the Court of Appeal, which said, "Tough." So that quite appalling case is going to Europe as well.
	We have international cases where it is thought more important to ensure that no one escapes the family courts in Britain than to look after the children better. I know of two such cases: the one that is well known from  The Times, and another one that is not so well known, where the court's objective is to get an eight-year-old back to England, away from his or her mother and leave the mother with another baby in situ. When I suggested to the Government that it would be better to put the child first and to transfer the case to the local jurisdiction, the response was, "Oh, no, we can't do that; the courts have to win," even though it is better for the child for the case to be transferred to the foreign jurisdiction.
	I want to make a few points about Ofsted, which has been very good in this area. It has started to reveal in its reports some of the truth about how the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service operated. It has also revealed the truth about the serious case review. Baby P died in August 2007, and Ofsted started taking responsibility for the sector in April 2007. I do not think that those two things can be correlated. It is a ray of light in an area that has involved people covering up for one another for years.
	The problem is that secrecy tends to prevent accountability. In fact, secrecy is often used to prevent Members of Parliament from finding out about such cases. Generally, what the Government say should happen is the right thing. I do not think that the Government's objectives are wrong. The problem is that something quite different actually happens. What is needed is a much wider inquiry, which is independent of people who make money out of the area. Perhaps the departmental Committee can look at that—perhaps the Justice Committee should do so as well—but we need people to look at it who are not interested in sweeping things under the carpet and saying that everything is perfect and that everyone is doing a brilliant job. Some people are doing a brilliant job. Another whistleblower came to me who had faced disciplinary action for telling the truth, which I thought was not very clever. I do not know what has since happened in that case. There are some very good people doing a very good job in difficult circumstances; the problem is that the secrecy has allowed bad practice to develop in unaccountable way.
	I will be happy to meet the relevant Minister and the departmental Select Committee to go through all the details. I met Lord Laming on Monday, although I think the terms of reference of his inquiry are far too narrow. What we need is a wider inquiry, because this matter cannot be kicked into the long grass. Problems arise every day across the country, particularly in England and Wales. Scotland generally has fewer problems, for reasons that I could go into at length, were it not five minutes to the hour—I have said that I will speak for only so long. This is an important issue and both sides of the coin matter. I ask the Government to consider instituting a wider inquiry.

David Chaytor: I rise to speak briefly in support of the new proposals on health and education in the Queen's Speech and to make a few remarks about the general direction of schools policy.
	I endorse almost all the comments that the Chairman of the Children, Schools and Families Committee made on policy, especially his comments on the structure of the debate. I have been a Member of Parliament for 11 years and I have attended every Queen's Speech debate in that time. I may be wrong, but my perception is that each year fewer Back Benchers wish to contribute or wish to spend time sitting in the Chamber because of the length of time allocated to Front Benchers. If we are serious about involving more Back Benchers and younger MPs in these debates, we have to take a careful look at the dominance of the Front Benchers.

David Chaytor: That is an extremely important point, and it highlights the crucial significance of greater co-operation and communication between police, local authorities, and the national health service. Whenever there is a tragic case such as that of baby P, the media routinely decide to target social workers, but they are less aggressive about the inadequacies in some of our policing systems, and certainly about those in some of our health care arrangements.
	Finally on children in care, the reluctance of some local authorities to increase the number of children in care is certainly partly a financial matter, but we have to accept that the quality of institutionalised care that our country has provided over many decades has been appalling. That partly explains the reluctance to put more children into care. If we learned the lessons of some of the Scandinavian countries and provided a higher quality of residential care, and could be assured that the quality of parenting that children would receive in a residential setting was without question better than that which they received at home, perhaps we would be less reluctant to put children into care, temporarily or permanently.
	On schools policy, in my constituency, since 1997 every primary school, secondary school, and GP surgery has had its roof fixed. My local hospital has not only had its roof fixed but has been totally rebuilt. That is to the enormous credit of my party's Government. In addition, there is the welcome prospect of seven new local health centres being built in the very near future. My local authority is on the verge of being able to rebuild or refurbish all its secondary schools, where necessary.
	The chief executive and the director of children's services in Bury are keen to support the bid that they submitted on 20 November to the revised Building Schools for the Future programme. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Family is likely to be in north-west England in early January, and it would be extremely useful if he could find time to visit Bury and talk to the chief executive of the local authority and the director of children's services about the very good plan that the local authority has submitted to the BSF programme. My constituents could then look forward to the most dramatic schools rebuilding programme that they have ever seen. That is enormously to the Government's credit.
	Also enormously to the Government's credit is the inexorable rise of standards in schools over the past 10 years. It is unfortunate that each year, when the GCSE, A-level and key stage test results come out, parts of the community, and Members in parts of this House, routinely want to rubbish the improving standards and achievements of our children.
	It is unfortunate that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has left the Chamber, because he raised a number of interesting issues, on many of which I could agree with him; there is a good deal of common ground between us. He raised a number of issues to do with micro-managing our schools system. That is astonishing coming from someone of the party that introduced the Education Reform Act 1988, which imposed on a generation of young people the most micro-managed system imaginable, and which resulted in the hugely prescriptive national curriculum, Stalinist forms of testing and assessment, and the unbelievably inaccurate league tables that are routinely published, and which drive the behaviour of head teachers in our schools. It is beyond belief that anyone who supported that legislation could accuse this Government of wishing to micro-manage our school system. One of the most interesting developments of the past 12 months is the recognition, not just by the Government but in all parts of the House, that the era of the ERA—the Education Reform Act—has probably come to an end. We have exhausted the advantages gained from the 1988 Act—and there have been some—and we have to build on that and move on. The shift of direction to a more comprehensive approach to children's services, with a greater emphasis on children's well-being and a new focus on the remaining inequalities in our school system and on the importance of social mobility, is welcome, and I look forward to the proposed legislation in the Queen's Speech significantly advancing that new agenda.

David Chaytor: That is an important point, but I do not agree with the hon. Lady, because the statement by the Secretary of State some weeks ago—in fact, it was made in the week in which she and I were on a Select Committee visit to Canada—made the biggest change to the testing and assessment system since 1988 fully recognised the damaging effect of teaching to the test. In fact, I was going to go on to praise the Secretary of State for making that statement and changing our testing and assessment system and essentially getting rid of the increasingly redundant key stage 3 test, and for leaving the door open to future reforms to the key stage 2 test. The progress that we have made in the past few months on testing and assessment is hugely welcome. The progress on curriculum reform, with the publication of the Rose review and the new freedoms for individual schools to be more flexible about the curriculum so that they can tailor it more to children's individual needs and develop a more personalised approach to the curriculum, is hugely welcome.
	A consultation was launched this week, and the notion of a school report card, replacing the bog-standard league table is hugely welcome. I hope that there will be adequate time for all hon. Members to consider what ought to go into the new school report card, which I hope will abandon once and for all the idea that raw scores are the only measure of a school's success. I look forward to the far more sophisticated but easy-to-understand form of a report card that will pay full recognition to the complete range of a school's achievements.
	There are two points on which I want to focus in a little more detail, beginning with my annual comment on school admissions. The Secretary of State will know of my interest in the subject, and that the Education and Inspections Act 2006 made significant improvements to the admissions system with the new code. Only this week, the Government published the revised code on school admissions, which will take effect early next year. I welcome it as another step towards a fairer admissions system that is likely to lead us a little further down the road to a better-balanced school intake. As all the international research indicates, countries that have balanced school intakes and that have the least inequalities and the flattest hierarchies between schools by and large perform better on all educational criteria. I welcome the new duty on the admissions authorities to meet the needs of the local area, and I welcome the improvements to admissions forums so that they, too, are more representative, and have to consider the fairness of admissions policies for that area.
	There is one element in the new revised code that I hope the Secretary of State will speak about in his closing remarks: the school's ethos. The Department's press release says that schools will be allowed to advise parents of their ethos during the application process and ask that children respect that ethos. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the issue of ethos will not become a criterion for the selection of children? If that does happen, and if children, or parents on their behalf, have to sign up to a particular ethos as an admission criterion, it will be a hugely retrograde step. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State commented on the question of ethos in his winding-up speech.

David Chaytor: With respect, that is a pretty fatuous question, because obviously I am not. My point is that there is an important distinction between requiring parents to say that their children will accept the ethos of the school and allowing schools to select which children they wish to admit. That is the fundamental distinction I am trying to make.
	Allowing time for the final speakers in the debate, I would like briefly to make one other point, which concerns the 14-to-19 phase of education. The Government have made enormous progress in the past two or three years on that issue. They have done so 10 years later than they should have done; we should have been grappling with the 14-to-19 sector as soon as we were elected in 1997. Nevertheless, I welcome the progress that we have made. Two issues emerge, however, from the establishment of this as a distinct sector, and from the development of diplomas as the central part of the curriculum in that sector. The first is the question of funding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that for many years there has been an enormous discrepancy—as much as 15 per cent.—between the per capita funding of students in the 16-to-19 phase of education and the rest. I welcome the fact that that discrepancy has recently been reduced; I understand that it is now down to 9 per cent. Given the structural changes in 16-to-19 education and the handing back to local authorities of the funding responsibility, is it not self-evident that we must have a uniform funding system, not only for the 16-to-19 phase, but for the 14-to-19 phase? I would be grateful if the Secretary of State commented on equality of funding between institutions in the 14-to-19 sector.
	My final point on that sector, and of my contribution, concerns the structures of 14-to-19 education. One of the issues that I found controversial in the 2006 Act was the power of presumption that schools currently without a sixth form could open one. I have raised that point with the Secretary of State before, and I raised it with the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills. As we move to an era beyond 2011 where the annual rise in public investment will be far less than it has been during the past 10 years, the last thing we want is an enormous explosion in the number of new, small sixth forms. All that will mean is that the cost of educating each student will be disproportionately higher, and we will not get the economies of scale increasingly necessary beyond 2011. It has been a concern to many of us that the academies programme, of which I am a strong supporter in most respects, although not every detail, was originally built on the assumption that every academy would have its own sixth form. So, hey presto, there were 400 new sixth forms at a stroke—even though there were not enough young people to fill them. I welcome the fact that that is no longer a requirement of academies and that they can be founded without a sixth form. The majority of our sixth-form colleges perform outstandingly and there has been a rapid improvement in the performance of the overwhelming majority of our further education and tertiary colleges. I am fortunate in having two of the most outstanding colleges in the country in my constituency—the Holy Cross sixth form college and Bury college. I realise that that does not apply to every part of the country, but it must be increasingly self-evident that the most economically effective and educationally advantageous way in which to deliver the new 14-to-19 phase of education is through the college sector, not through the proliferation of small sixth forms.
	I confidently predict that if the Government do not take this issue far more seriously than any previous Government, perhaps not by the end of the next Parliament, but certainly the one after, we will have to close large numbers of sixth forms because the budget will simply not stretch to cover those costs. Again, I would be grateful if the Secretary of State took this on board and perhaps opened up a dialogue with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills because it is an issue that obviously covers both Departments. If we are to make the 14-to-19 sector a success and implement our plan to increase the education and training participation age, it is crucial to recognise that it can only be done by strengthening the college sector and increasing the role of colleges in the delivery of that phase. I am afraid that that means a reduction in the number of independent sixth forms.

Jeremy Wright: I shall focus on just one aspect of today's discussion about the Government's programme of activity for the forthcoming legislative Session: the national dementia strategy, to which the Secretary of State for Health referred in his opening speech. At the outset, I should say that I fully welcome the concept of a national dementia strategy, as, I suspect, do most Members. It is immensely important, and has been for a significant time.
	In August 2007, the former care services Minister, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis)—not the other Bury Member, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor)—said that we should work to bring dementia out of the shadows. He was entirely right to say that and I applaud the Government for acting on that impulse and arranging for a national dementia strategy to be brought forward. I hope that the House will forgive me if I cover the reasons why a national dementia strategy is so necessary and why dementia is such an important subject.
	The figures may be well known to hon. Members, but I will repeat them. Some 700,000 people in the UK now have dementia. That figure will probably double in the next 30 years, and the cost to the UK economy will treble during that period. That is a significant figure, because the current estimated cost to the UK economy is £17 billion a year, which is more than the cost of heart disease, stroke and cancer combined. Those are very significant figures, which is why the strategy is, as I said, extremely welcome.
	The strategy is welcome, at least in part, because a problem of that scale should never be ignored. That fits into the context of what other hon. Members said earlier about mental health issues more generally. It is true, and worth recognising, that people do not like to talk about mental health issues in the same way as they like to talk about physical health issues. Some stigma is attached—and that is true of dementia.
	It is not just recognition of the scale of the problem that we require. We also need people to have the courage to come forward and explain that it is happening to them, and how they are coping with it. In the context of dementia, one of those people is the author Terry Pratchett, who the House will know has recently revealed that he has a form of dementia. Since then, he has actively campaigned on the subject, talked a great deal about research, and described what has happened to him in terms of a tsunami that will hit the United Kingdom. He is right to talk in those terms.
	Two aspects of a tsunami are important, and someone who is about to be hit by one will want to know two things. First, they will want to know how big the wave that is about to hit them is; I have said a little about that. Secondly, they will want to know when it will hit. How urgent is the problem? It is with regard to the urgency of the problem that I have some difficulties with the Government's position. I have no doubt that the Government have done entirely the right thing in arranging to introduce a strategy, but I am becoming a little concerned, as I know others in the field are, that the Government's sense of urgency has started to slip.
	When the former care services Minister spoke about his intention to introduce a strategy, he said that he hoped that it would be available by the summer of 2008. However, the Department of Health issued a press release on 19 July that said:
	"The full Strategy, to be launched in the Autumn, will have three main aims".
	I shall return to those aims in a moment, but it became clear at that point that the Government wished to introduce the strategy in the autumn. We know that the Government have a very flexible concept of autumn, but we are clearly no longer in the autumn now. We then asked the current care services Minister when exactly we might expect the strategy. I asked the Secretary of State that question today, too. The Minister has said that it will be introduced shortly and, under further cross-examination, that that might mean early in the new year.
	I understand that things are difficult in government. Other priorities arise, and the Government sometimes find that time scales slip a little. However, an issue of such importance and urgency must be dealt with expeditiously. Those involved with dementia—those who have it, those who care for them, and the professionals working in the sector—regard the situation as urgent. They feel that they have persuaded the Government of that—indeed, the Government have made it clear that they regard dementia as a priority. With that must come a sense of urgency, but if time scales continue to slip, that urgency must fall into doubt, which would be extraordinarily regrettable.
	The one aspect of the strategy that I urge the Government to regard as especially important is training. Training applies to various different aspects of dementia, and in various ways to those involved with it. The draft consultation document on the dementia strategy says that it will have three main aims. The first aim will be
	"to increase awareness of dementia and remove the stigma associated with it,"
	the second to
	"ensure early diagnosis and intervention,"
	and the third to
	"improve the quality of care that people with dementia receive"
	There can be no argument about any of those aims, and training is key to delivering the second two.
	I want to talk about two aspects of training, the first of which is training for general practitioners. They are, as the name suggests, practitioners of general medicine. No one expects them to be experts in every medical condition. However, one of the problems that we face in dealing with dementia is that general practitioners are extraordinarily reluctant to make diagnoses. I suspect that the failure to make such diagnoses is in many cases down to reluctance rather than inability.
	It is often said—rightly, in my view—that where we are with dementia now is roughly where we were with cancer 30 or 40 years ago. There is sometimes a sense in the medical profession that it is not worth diagnosing dementia because nothing can be done. One of the problems is that that is largely true. There is currently no cure for dementia, and no effective treatments. However, it is not true that absolutely nothing can be done. Any support for or understanding of those with dementia is of such immense value to them and those who care for them that it is worth making any diagnosis as early as possible. If we expect general practitioners to make diagnoses, as we want them to, we will need to give them the training to allow them at the very least to recognise the signs, and to refer patients to a specialist medical practitioner who can then make a diagnosis.

Michael Gove: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Government Front-Bench team for their understanding in allowing me to leave the Chamber briefly earlier in order to see my daughter's nativity play. Even though we all face tough economic circumstances, I know that all hon. Members will want to find time in their schedules for seasonal festivities.
	I was particularly pleased to read about the great fun had by all at the Christmas party held by the Secretary of State at the Department for Children, Schools and Families. I understand that, as well as wine and canapés, the Secretary of State also laid on for members of the press a Scalextric demonstration, a Nintendo Wii and some Star Wars light sabres. Those were not products acquired during the seasonal sale that Woolworths has just launched to celebrate the life-saving effects of the recent VAT cut; nor were they the toys that the Prime Minister threw out of his pram on hearing what the German Finance Minister thought of his policies. They were, in fact, there to help members of the press celebrate the first anniversary of the children's plan.
	I also understand that the climax of the party was a light sabre duel between the Secretary of State and Mr. Michael White of  The Guardian, modelled on the epic duel between Darth Vader and Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars—these are serious times and we need serious people. I also understand that the Secretary of State won, and I am sure that, as he triumphed, he uttered the words that the Home Secretary spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) just the other week—"May the force be with you". But whether or not we believe in the force, and the power of the dark side, I am sure that we can forgive light-heartedness at this time.
	Of course, some hon. Members may have been in good spirits yesterday for reasons other than the formal anniversary of the children's plan. They may have been listening to the Prime Minister taking pride in his global rescue plan. Well, we now know what the man in charge of Europe's biggest economy thinks of that. The Prime Minister may believe, in his more modest moments, that he is Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the truth is that he is closer to a political Max Mosley: he thinks he is king of the world and he has clearly got money to burn, but all people remember is that he got a terrific spanking in German.  [Interruption.] Thank you.
	We have had a good debate this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) brought his customary authority and gravitas to discussion of the NHS, underlining his reputation as a stalwart friend of health professionals everywhere. The Secretary of State for Health made the traditional partisan points with his customary lightness of touch and discussed forthcoming Bills in a way that reminded us why he is such a valued member of this Government.
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) brought his considerable intellect and passion to bear, and I welcome the increasingly reformist focus of Liberal Democrat health and education policy. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families, spoke comprehensively and well, and with particular authority on the need to improve child protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, combined a proper regard for efficiency in the public sector with pungent prescriptions for reform, not all of which I necessarily share.
	The hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) made a series of telling points on the need to improve support for children with special educational needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) spoke with great passion about the need to improve the service that his constituents get from the NHS. He also made a powerful plea on behalf of children with special educational needs.
	The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke persuasively in favour of the NHS constitution, using her constituency experience to powerful effect. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) spoke, as he has done so often and with such passion, on child protection. In an intervention, he asked specifically whether we agreed with the terms of Lord Laming's inquiry. We do not, as we made clear in a letter to Lord Laming. We fear that they are too narrow. We want Lord Laming to ask not just whether his recommendations in 2003 are being followed, but whether we need to do more to reform the child protection system.
	Lord Laming has said that the foundation of current children's services is robust, but we are not persuaded of that assertion. He also argues that serious case reviews, including the serious case review into baby P, should remain confidential. We disagree. We have nothing against Lord Laming as an individual—indeed, he was patron of the commission on social workers, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) just the other year, which produced many recommendations that the Secretary of State now appears to be implementing—but we think that it is important, as I am sure the whole House would agree, that there is no bar on serious questions being asked on raising the bar in child protection.
	The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) made a characteristically thoughtful contribution on child protection and schools policy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) spoke movingly and effectively about what we can do to help those living with dementia.
	I can freely praise one or two speeches that I was not able to hear in full because the notes taken by my colleagues on the Front Bench have been so generous. I can also praise the Secretary of State's speech, which I have not yet heard, because I know what is in it—not because it has been leaked to me by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, but because he displays an admirable consistency in the political message he propagates. Whatever the occasion, wherever the platform, whoever the opponent, he repeats the same line: we on the Government side are saints who are investing in stronger motherhood and much more apple pie, and the other guys—it can be Scottish nationalists, Liberal Democrats or even German Social Democrats—are monsters from the Jurassic era who will cut, cut and cut again.
	Psychologists have a term for people who repeat the same behaviour over and over again, whatever the circumstances and whatever the efficacy. They call it obsessive-compulsive behaviour. But any such diagnosis of the Secretary of State's approach would be mistaken. Another psychological term captures his approach much more accurately. It is called transference. Transference occurs when people accuse others of behaviour which they themselves exhibit. If Jeffrey Archer accuses someone of embroidering the truth, that is transference. If Simon Cowell accuses someone of arrogance, that is transference. If Peter Mandelson accuses someone of irresponsible leaking, that is transference. When the Secretary of State accuses others of wanting to inflict cuts, that is actually what he has been doing.
	Before the last election, the Secretary of State told us that a Tory Government would reduce future spending by £35 billion, but now his Government are reducing spending by £37 billion. His own Department is not immune. Let us look at some of his budgets, such as the budget for Building Schools for the Future. On school building, he has failed so far. We were promised 200 new schools by the end of this year. We have had fewer than 20. Now local authorities have had to go cap in hand to the European Investment Bank for money for school building because none is available in Britain. The pre-Budget report says, ominously:
	"DCSF is assessing the value for money of Building Schools for the Future".
	A senior Treasury source was quoted as saying of the school building programme that
	"it's clear we're going to have to scale it back and scrap some considerable parts of the programme."
	On child care, the Secretary of State has failed so far. We were promised by the Prime Minister that we would have for every three and four-year-old an entitlement to 20 hours of free child care, and we were promised an extension of that entitlement to all two-year-olds. But again, in the pre-Budget report we are told that that entitlement will not be extended to 20 hours for three and four-year-olds, and the entitlement for two-year-olds will not be extended to all—so cuts again.
	On diplomas, the Secretary of State has failed so far. We were promised that 50,000 students would take these new qualifications—then 40,000, then 30,000, then 20,000. Now the number is 12,000 and falling. In a parliamentary answer that I received today, we discover that funding for diplomas is going down as well. It is being cut from £117 million in 2008-09 to £78 million in 2010-11. That is a 34 per cent. drop in funding. So there are cuts in that programme too.
	I feel sorry for the Secretary of State having to make these cuts. It is not his Department's fault. He should really take the matter up with the team who have been responsible for economic management over the last 10 years and who have landed us in this mess. Perhaps he should have a word with the man who has been principal economic adviser at the Treasury for the last decade: the chap who designed the regulatory regime that allowed the banks to behave as they did.
	I commend to the Secretary of State an article in today's  Daily Telegraph by Dr. Irwin Stelzer, who says:
	"It is beyond question that Britain's problems stem in part from its fractured regulatory system, with responsibility split between the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority, and the Treasury. A close study of the relevant documents fails to reveal that this system was forced"
	upon us by the United States, says Stelzer, adding that
	"it sprang full blown from the brains of Chancellor Gordon Brown and his sidekick, Ed Balls."
	The guilty men are there in front of us.

Michael Gove: I shall wait to see what the Secretary of State actually pledges to commit to education spending. Until we know the details of what he is spending, we cannot know what to match and what to increase. We know, for example, that diploma funding has been cut, but we found that out only today. As the pre-Budget report unravels and as we discover the reality of what is going on, we will come up with the answers that the Secretary of State himself has so far failed to give.
	I was talking about the divergence between the path trodden by this Secretary of State and the road taken by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. While the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is pressing ahead with reform, taking on vested interests and challenging the left of his party—creating, indeed, a radical new centre-ground consensus—the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is opting for none of the above. While welfare reform, and the spirit of Blairism, live on in the heart of the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), the cause of schools reform, which was championed by Mr. Blair at the start of this Parliament, has now been put to sleep by the right hon. Member for Normanton (Ed Balls). Academies have had their freedoms curtailed; Lord Adonis has been shunted into a siding at the Department for Transport; Bruce Liddington, the schools commissioner, responsible for diversity in schools, has been dismissed and not replaced; and Sir Cyril Taylor, the guardian of the independence of academies at the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, has been dispensed with as well.
	In his education Bill, the Secretary of State plans to introduce more powers for bureaucrats, more new bureaucracies and more bureaucratic burdens on teachers. That represents a tremendous missed opportunity. It is sad that in this Queen's Speech there was so little of conspicuous merit, apart from those welfare proposals which the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde largely copied from the recommendations of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). In that sense, the Gracious Speech was mostly old, with very little new; most of that was borrowed, and all of it was blue. Members will perceive an irony there. When Opposition Members are given Government papers and publish them, they get arrested. When Government Members get Opposition papers and publish them, they get a fresh White Paper and rave reviews. It is a course that I recommend to the Secretary of State.
	What this country needs is a Government committed to reform, ready to tackle vested interests, determined to extend parental choice and convinced of the benefits of diversity. What this country needs is a Government who, instead of searching for dividing lines, seek unity around reform; instead of generating bureaucracy for those on the front line, believe in freedom for professionals; and instead of presiding over economic turmoil and falling living standards, offer change, optimism and hope. That is why we desperately need a Conservative Government, and that is why I commend this amendment to the House.

Edward Balls: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) for giving me advance notice of something this afternoon, and I think that I probably owe him an apology. He wrote to give me advance notice that he would be absent from the Chamber for his daughter's nativity play, which was very courteous of him, but I, unfortunately, did not give him advance notice of my intention to intervene on him. If I had done so, he might have had the chance to write into the script of his speech the answer to my intervention, because I have to say once again that, as has been the case time and again in the past year, what we have had from the hon. Gentleman is a well-written, erudite, humorous and insubstantial speech.
	I shall now move on to the substance. I want to do so by, without patronising Members, thanking them for their contributions to this excellent debate, with the exception of the speech that we have just heard. We might have some disagreements about methods, but there is common agreement that we want to do the best by the children of this country for their safety, education, well-being and happiness. There has been clear commitment to that in speeches made from all parts of the House, some of which I shall now mention.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson), whose Bill on information for children with special educational needs will be very important indeed, made an important speech in which she talked about training for teachers with SEN specialities. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) also talked about the importance of making sure that there is proper training in SEN for those teachers, and I thank him for his contribution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made an important speech on health, and on the fact that we need to involve local communities in the management of health services.
	Although I do not agree with everything the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has said, I know he is committed to the cause for which he campaigns, and I can say to him today that, following the Ofsted reports of recent weeks, we will be able to give him the detailed information that he wants on serious case review numbers.
	The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) made a speech on dementia, which is not an area in which I have expertise. I know that he wants a Government strategy to be implemented sooner rather than later, but when that strategy is published, I am sure that he will contribute to the debates that follow on the important subject of how we make sure we take forward care for people with that disease.
	This Queen's Speech takes forward the commitments that we made in our children's plan and, one year to the day after its publication, our progress report, "One Year On", namely to make sure every child can succeed, to tackle all the barriers to children's progress in and out of school and to work together, and intervene early, to make sure children are safe and properly protected and that their well-being is promoted. In the Queen's Speech, we committed to set out in law the responsibility of all of us to do the following: to keep children safe through children's trusts; to establish the legal basis for our new standards regulator, Ofqual; to strengthen our intervention powers to ensure that all schools can be good schools and all local authorities can tackle underperforming schools; to give schools more power to tackle bad behaviour; and to reform the provision and funding of 16-to-19 education. Opposition Members claim that there is nothing in the Queen's Speech, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Ann Coffey: One of the failures identified in Haringey was the insufficient challenge by the local safeguarding children board to its members and front-line staff. Often the chairs of these boards are also the chairs of children's services. Has the Secretary of State given any further consideration to the conflicts of interest that arise in that situation and to having independent chairs?

Edward Balls: That is a helpful clarification that  The Sunday Times was wrong on that point.
	The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) made some important points about the particular practices of health services in the Haringey case. I assure him that the re-running of the independent serious case review and the wider work being done on the Haringey case by the Healthcare Commission will ensure that the points that he raised are properly addressed. It would be wrong for me to prejudge that review now as it is ongoing. The points made by the hon. Gentleman, and by the Chairman of the Select Committee, about ensuring that we have the best on-the-ground inspection, are absolutely right. I know that Ofsted is also committed to ensuring that the inspection regime is robust in safeguarding cases. I will ensure that that happens.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that Stockport, an authority in the later stages of Building Schools for the Future, is preparing a bid for capital that includes £30 million for Reddish Vale technology college, which he has visited? Can he guarantee that it will not be scrapped on his watch?

Edward Balls: I am afraid that I can give no such guarantee. We are doing the right thing—bringing forward our capital programme to invest in our schools and support our economy. In the case of Stockport, in Denton and Reddish, of 13 schools two are set to be closed if the Conservatives have their way, and 360 schools are set to be closed—

Question accordingly negatived.
	 The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3) ) .
	 Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Monday 15 December.— (Claire Ward.)

Peter Bone: I should like to thank the Speaker for granting me the opportunity to debate one of the most controversial matters to affect my constituency since I became a Member of Parliament. I would also like to thank the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) for his attendance, and I look forward to his response. He is a highly regarded Minister and has a reputation for listening to fair arguments. However, I assumed that the Minister replying to my debate would be the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope), as he is the Minister for the East Midlands, a Health Minister and, more importantly, the local Member of Parliament who directly benefits from the closure of Rushden out-patient facilities. We could have had a real debate, with proper questioning, between two hon. Members who know in great detail the issues that will be discussed this evening.
	I would like to give a little background detail about my constituency that I think will help. My constituency comprises the two major towns of Wellingborough and Rushden, and a large number of outlying villages and towns. It does not have a general hospital, a community hospital or a minor injuries unit. When my constituents need to go to hospital, they have to travel long distances to either Kettering or Northampton. The Wellingborough constituency is a second-class relation to the other constituencies in Northamptonshire when it comes to health care provision. Kettering and Northampton have general hospitals; Corby has a minor injuries unit and is soon to get a community hospital; and Daventry has a community hospital. Wellingborough has nothing, except very limited out-patient facilities at the Rushden Memorial clinic and at the Isebrook facility in Wellingborough.
	Our out-patient facilities are now under threat. Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust wants to close the Rushden Memorial clinic and move all out-patient services out of the town of Rushden and into a small town in the Corby constituency. Naturally, I am outraged at the proposal to cut even more public services for the people of Rushden. This is a cut too far, and the move cannot be allowed to happen, especially given that the Rushden Memorial clinic was originally paid for by Rushden people for the benefit of Rushden people.
	The Rushden Memorial clinic, which provided out-patient services for the people of Rushden, was opened in 1950. It was paid for by the people of Rushden and workers in the local shoe and boot industry. The memorial clinic was dedicated to the memory of the 138 men, women and children from Rushden who lost their lives during the second world war. It is immoral to move those services—the only ones we have—out of Rushden. The proposal is an insult to the town and the people who live there. It is not just me who is outraged. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is the single biggest issue to affect the constituency since I became Member of Parliament in 2005. I have been inundated with letters, e-mails and telephone calls from worried and upset constituents. As yet, I have not received any representations in support of the proposal.
	I would like to read just a few of the many e-mails and letters that I have received; they show the strength of opposition to scrapping out-patient facilities in Rushden.
	A lady writes:
	"My opinion is that we desperately need these facilities in Rushden as Rushden is much bigger than Irthlingborough. We do lack quite a few facilities in Rushden, and considering our nearest hospital is 9 to 10 miles away, people will find Irthlingborough difficult to get to if they do not drive. I strongly support you that this should go ahead in Rushden."
	Another constituent writes:
	"I would like to put forward my extreme disgust at the way this was released to the public. This has not been discussed in any way and completely without patient consultation. I attend the Outpatient Department at least 8 times a year...I am in almost constant pain in my joints and I am now experiencing giddy spells when I move my head. This makes it virtually impossible to drive myself to the clinic and my husband would have to take time off from work to take me to my appointments and, as he works over an hour's drive from Rushden, this means that if I have an early afternoon appointment, he has to take the whole afternoon off. If the clinic were to be left in Rushden I can get there either by walking or a friend can take me if school hours permit. I can drive short distances but four miles away is pushing it a little. I gave up work recently for this reason."
	A couple write:
	"We now read they are to move the outpatient facilities to Irthlingborough. What utter nonsense, the population in Rushden is increasing at an alarming rate so why are they considering this move? Is it to get even more money for the land? We were told that the land was being sold to get the money to build a new outpatients so what the hell has happened to this plan? The whole thing is ridiculous.
	We need an A&E. Having to go to Kettering is mad. Most of Rushden feels this is needed and no one seems to care about the needs for Rushden. We are fed up with the attitude towards this town".
	A lady writes to me:
	"The people who are making these changes...should let the people of Rushden have their say. After all, it is our town, our lovely town, that is why we chose to live here."
	As these comments, and hundreds like them that I have received, clearly show, it is not just a question of retaining the existing health provision in Wellingborough and Rushden—we need more health provision. We need our fair share of health provision, which has been denied to us for so long. The Government now favour an approach for community hospitals in which a hub-and-spoke system feeds into the main hospital—in this case, either Kettering or Northampton. It would therefore be common sense to put the first community hospital in an area with no hospital provision, but unfortunately common sense does not prevail in this case. There is no valid reason, despite the many excuses one hears from Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, why outpatient facilities should be closed in Rushden and moved to Irthlingborough.
	Rushden is the largest town in east Northamptonshire, and it is growing rapidly. There are good transport links from Rushden to other parts of east Northamptonshire.
	Irthlingborough is a small town that is virtually unreachable by public transport. Let us look at the comparative size of both areas. If one looks at the historic population census for 2001, bearing in mind the fact that my constituency has grown considerably since then, one sees that Rushden and its hinterland has a population of over 38,000. Irthlingborough has a population of just 8,000. The main acute hospital serving Rushden, Corby and the rest of east Northamptonshire is Kettering general hospital. The distance from Corby to that hospital is 9.3 miles; the distance from Rushden to the hospital is 14 miles. Corby already has a minor injuries unit, and is first in line in Northamptonshire to get a new community hospital, as recently announced in the local media.
	We have not been given one single decent reason by the foundation trust why it wants to close Rushden's facilities and move them into the Corby area.
	I would like to point out that it is not just my constituents who oppose the plan. I have received many representations from Corby constituents pleading that the out-patient facilities be kept in Rushden because it is much easier for them to get there than to Irthlingborough. An excerpt from just one e-mail that I have received makes the point:
	"I live in Raunds and use public transport to access the outpatients department in Rushden. There is a fairly decent bus service between Raunds and Rushden which is half-hourly. If the outpatients moved to Irthlingborough, I would have to take two buses to get there as there is no service between Raunds and Irthlingborough. The alternative would be to travel all the way to Kettering which is a very long bus journey away and the buses only run two-hourly. Therefore the move would not benefit the patients living in my part of East Northants who rely on buses."
	However, the proposed site in Irthlingborough is not only inconvenient for people who use public transport. If my constituents from Rushden and Higham Ferrers had to travel by car to the proposed Irthlingborough site, they would have to go across the infamous Chowns Mill roundabout on the A45. That roundabout is widely recognised by the authorities as a danger to pedestrians and motorists. Only recently, unfortunately, a pedestrian was killed while trying to cross it. At rush hour, Chowns Mill roundabout is so busy that there are extensive queues leading up to all approaches. The district council, the county council, the highways authority and the Government have all stated that the roundabout needs a grade-separated junction and a safe passage for pedestrians to cross. But once again, the Wellingborough and Rushden constituency is way down the line when it comes to public funding and the grade-separation scheme is not even in the regional assembly's forward programme for capital schemes.
	I now want to talk about the Rushden project: "the Rushden what?" you may ask. You would be forgiven if you had not heard of it because health authorities in Northamptonshire have been working hard to brush it under the carpet and pretend it never existed. The Rushden project was formed many years ago. Many local people have been involved in the Rushden project, myself included, before and after I became an MP. It was always the purpose of the project to bring the three NHS facilities in Rushden together on one site. The project was to have an enhanced and comprehensive health facility to serve the people of Rushden and its surrounds, and it had always been planned that the site would be the Rushden hospital site. The logic behind that was that the site already hosts one of the NHS facilities and there is extensive land on which to build, with the additional advantage that the land was owned by the NHS.
	The Rushden hospital site is huge. It has good transport links and there is plenty of land to build an all-embracing health facility. But the NHS is proposing to sell off the land on the Rushden hospital site. What for? It is for more housing, so we will get more people and less health service. Where is the sense in that? The Government and the health service have to sit up and realise that that cut to health facilities in the Wellingborough and Rushden constituency has to stop. My constituents live in the worst part of the worst-funded primary care trust in the country. That is a fact and even the Secretary of State for Health has admitted it. Recently, he said:
	"Every other PCT has moved to within about 3.5 per cent. of their target through this pace of change process...I think Northampton were the only ones that were more than 3.5 per cent.".
	There we have it from the Health Secretary himself. In other words, my area, in the last three years, was underfunded by £101,746,000. The Government admit that Northamptonshire is the worst funded PCT in the country and yet we are not being given the funding and provision that the Government themselves say that we should get.
	I want to consider Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust's proposals to close Rushden out-patient facilities and move them out of the town. The foundation trust will claim that it engaged in a public consultation exercise to gauge local opinion. What utter rot. The consultation was completely flawed. It was one of those consultations whereby one asks questions that are not relevant and then claims that a consensus has been reached.
	First, the consultation was sent out to a limited number of people. Secondly, it did not mention the proposal to move out-patient services out of Rushden. There was no reference to the proposal to move out-patient facilities to Irthlingborough. If the consultation had been genuine, it would have said, in a straightforward manner, that the proposal was to put the out-patient facilities in Irthlingborough. Had it said that, the consultation would have had a completely different result. Indeed, the consultation document intimated that out-patient facilities would stay in the town. The public, the local council and I were not given the facts. The information came to me only through a leak, and I put it into the public domain.
	All I have been able to establish is that there is an issue relating to finance. The foundation trust claims that it has a developer who is willing to build the facilities and lease it back to it at a reasonable rate. Who are the developers? When were they appointed? When did the plan go out to competitive tender? Why has the decision been made in such an unorthodox, cloak-and-dagger way? The foundation trust claims that it examined possible sites in Rushden and found them unsuitable. How can the Rushden hospital site, which the NHS owns, with plenty of land on which to build, great transport links and in the biggest town in east Northamptonshire, not be suitable? Local councils are providing the foundation trust with a list of alternative sites in Rushden. I do not believe that the sites in Rushden have been properly investigated.
	Let me read what one of my constituents has written to me about Kettering general hospital's supposed public consultation:
	"We believe the recent public exercise regarding the extension of the Wymington Road hospital site to provide mental health facilities for the area, was just an expensive ploy to divert the public's attention away from the fact that the 'Hayway' clinics, and the Rectory Road practice are in the pipeline to be moved to Irthlingborough. The proposed site there we believe will be difficult to be reached by any means except by private car or taxi; not a viable means for elderly people."
	I agree. I have here a copy of Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust's consultation document. It is very nice and glossy, with lots of pictures and, in the middle, there is a map. I do not know if you can see it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in the middle of the map, it states in bold letters: "Future Health Facilities". My constituents were outrageously misled.
	I run the "Listening to Wellingborough and Rushden" campaign. I believe that, as a Member of Parliament, it is important to listen to the views and concerns of the people whom one represents. There has been the most extraordinary explosion of outrage about the hospital's proposal. As part of my campaign, I am writing to every person in Rushden to make them aware of the trust's proposals and to ask for their opinions now that they have the full facts. I will publish the results of that survey at the end of January. I have also organised a public meeting on 23 January so that local residents can come along and voice their concerns.
	I am grateful to the Minister for listening to my speech. I appreciate that he does not have direct power, given the new status of the foundation trust hospital. However, I would appreciate any comments he might have on the situation and any answers to the specific questions I have raised. If he cannot answer those questions now, I would be most grateful if he wrote to me.

Ben Bradshaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his advice, and I urge him to take up those detailed concerns with the primary care trust and the acute trust. I know that he has already had discussions with them, and that they would be happy to continue those discussions.
	The third option considered was to extend the existing provision at Rushden Memorial clinic. I am advised, however, that the present site could not accommodate the increase in the numbers of patients that the trust plans for the area. Even if extension of the building were possible, it would be very difficult to continue delivering the present range of clinics on site during the building work.
	The fourth proposal involves the new site at Irthlingborough, which is 2.7 miles from the present clinic. The proposed new facility there would serve the whole population of East Northamptonshire, not just Rushden. Of course, any development must be easily accessible to everybody who needs to access its services, including those travelling from outside the town. Kettering general hospital and Northamptonshire PCT advise me that the Irthlingborough is their preferred option because it would provide a brand new building built to the trust's requirements. The alternatives would have meant the trust converting an existing building, with poorer results. As the hon. Gentleman said, a third-party developer, who will assume the planning and development risks, is providing the building. The trust will be able to rent the building from the developer, meaning that the trust can afford the scheme. Otherwise, the trust believes that it would need to raise about £4 million to purchase the land and build its own facility. It also says that the new site could be available for the public to use from January or February 2010.
	The trust believes that the new facility, being directly off the A6 and supported by regular public transport links, will be accessible to people from across East Northamptonshire. The site also has the potential to be expanded in the future, which would enable the trust to develop additional services for the area, such as a minor injuries unit and a fracture clinic. The trust estimates that these proposals mean the hon. Gentleman's constituents would save almost 130,000 travel miles a year, through being able to be treated closer to home, rather than having to travel to Kettering or further afield.
	The hon. Gentleman made some other, more general points about health care in his constituency. He has often raised the issue of health care funding and facilities in Northamptonshire. I am sure that he will have noticed that the 2009-10 and 2010-11 revenue allocations to primary care trusts were announced by the Government this Monday. I am also sure that he will welcome the fact that over the next 2 years, funding for Northamptonshire Teaching PCT will increase by 11.9 per cent. to £983.4 million. This is one of the highest funding increases in the country; only 15 PCTs in England will receive a greater percentage increase. I am afraid that I have to tell him, however, that the primary care trust no longer has the accolade of being the furthest from its target. By 2011, Northamptonshire will be only 1.4 per cent. away from its target, and many other PCTs will be a great deal further away from theirs, so that is good news for his local area on the funding front.
	The increase in funding has been matched with a growth in facilities in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I am sure that he will have been delighted at the opening of the new GP practice in Higham Ferrers last year. He will also know that Kettering general hospital provides out-patients at Isebrook hospital in Wellingborough. I am sure that he is also aware of the proposals for a new primary care development there—it is due to open in 2010—and the plans for a brand new community hospital.